"To criticise, expose and condemn others is not a pleasant task; but whenreligious teachers enthrone error, and mislead honest people, silence would be unkind andcensurable."
Being profoundly convinced that Seventh-Day Adventism is a system of error, I feel itmy duty to publish what I know of it. I do it in the fear of God. Knowing the sorrow ithas brought to my heart and to thousands, I must warn others against it. I do not questionthe honesty of the Adventists, but their sincerity does not sanctify their errors. I havehad to speak plainly, but, I trust kindly. I have had to treat each subject briefly, andleave many untouched, but I have taken up the main pillars of that faith! if these fall,the whole must go down.
It is now nearly twenty-five years since this book was first published. This is thefourteenth edition. It has been translated into several languages, sold by numerouspublishing houses, gone to the ends of the earth wherever Adventism has gone, and has beenthe greatest obstacle that work has ever had to meet. Yet Adventists have ventured noanswer to it. Say what they may, it is evident that they would gladly answer it if theycould do so safely.
"Replies to Eld. Canright," quoted in this work, is not an answer to thisbook, but to a few articles I wrote for a paper long before the book was published. Thepamphlet itself proves this. The title page is dated "1888," while my book wasnot published till one year later, 1889. See my title page. Then on page eighty of theirpamphlet I read this: "He promises a forthcoming book, by which we presume he designsto sweep away clean everything which his articles have left. It will receive dueattention, if thought worthy of it, when it appears." This shows that this"Reply" was no answer to my book. One was promised but never appeared. The bookdiscusses many topics not even mentioned in the articles, and, of course, is much morecomplete every way. Considering that Adventists are always so ready for debate, discussionand replies, how is it that this book, that has bothered them more than all others whichhave appeared against them, is so carefully let alone by them? The reason is manifest toall candid people.
And here is what my Advent brethren thought of me before I left them:
"Battle Creek, Mich., July 13, 1881. Brother Canright: * * * I feel more interestin you than in any other man, because I know your worth when the Lord is with you, as alaborer. James White."
"Battle Creek, Mich., May 22, 1881. * * * It is time there was a change of theofficers of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful the Lord willbe pleased that we should constitute two of that Board. James White."
"Battle Creek, Mich., Aug. 6, 1884. You have long been with us, and we will alllove you. G.I. Butler."
"Martinsburg, Neb., July 14, 1884. You were a power in the world, and did a vastamount of good. * * * We need your help in the work greatly. Your precious talent, ifhumbly and fully consecrated to God, would be so useful. There are so many places where itwould be a great help. G.I. Butler."
Advent Review, March, 1887: "We have felt exceedingly sad to part in our religiousconnection with one whom we have long esteemed as a dear brother."
Advent Review, March 22, 1887: "In leaving us, he has taken a much more manly andcommendable course than most of those who have withdrawn from us, coming voluntarily toour leading brethren, and frankly stating the condition of mind he was in. He did thisbefore his own church, in our presence, and, so far as we know, has taken no unfair,underhanded means to injure us in any way. He goes from our midst with no immoral stainupon his character, chooses associations more pleasant to himself. This is every man'spersonal privilege if he chooses to take it."
The quotations in my book are from the Adventist books published up to the date when Iwrote my book, 1889. Since then most of their books have been reprinted and pageddifferently. To conform to these books as now paged, I would need to change many of myreferences. To do this I would have to reprint my whole book, as it is in electrotypeplates. A change of a few plates would necessitate a change of all. So it leaves them asthey were. The quotations are all there, only some are on a different page in theirpresent editions. I took great care to have every quotation exactly correct. They arereliable.
I design to be perfectly fair towards my Advent brethren. I was with them twenty-eightyears, from the age of nineteen to forty-seven, the most active years of my life. I wasdearly loved by them and I loved them. I love them now. I have thousands of dear friendsamong them still. It was a terrible trial to break away from all these tender ties. Evennow the tears fall fast as I write these lines. But truth and duty were dearer to me thansocial ties.
Again I bear them record that they are a sincere, devoted, self-sacrificing people,thoroughly believing what they profess. They have many excellent qualities, and manylovely Christian people among them. Like all churches, they have their full share ofundesirable members, not from any immoral teachings, but from human frailty, common in allchurches. Daily I pray for them that the Lord may bless all that is good in them andforgive, and, in some way, overrule for good when they are in error. This is all I dareask for myself.
D. M. CANRIGHT. 1914.
WHEN a prominent man leaves one church or party and joins an opposing one and gives hisreasons for it he may expect that his old associates will reply to him. I expected noexception in my case when I renounced Adventism, so have not been disappointed. The greatmajority of my former brethren have been very friendly to me and treated me kindly. A few,a very few, have done otherwise. Their object has been to counteract my influence againstwhat they regard as God's work. These few have started the report that I have been sorry Ileft Adventism, that I have said so, have tried to return to them, have confessed that mybook was false, and some have said that I was very poor, a physical and mental wreck, withno hope of salvation, etc. These reports are accepted as facts by honest brethren andrepeated till they are believed by many Adventists the world over. I have denied them inevery possible way, but they are still believed and repeated, and doubtless always willbe. I leave God to judge between us.
I now and here for the hundredth time solemnly affirm before God that I renouncedAdventism because I believed it to be an error. I have never once regretted that I did so,have never intimated to any one that I have had the least desire to go back to thatpeople. It would be impossible for me to do such a thing and be an honest man. I am now(1915) well in body and mind, have a good home worth $10,000 or $12,000, and have fourgrown children, of whom any man would be proud. On leaving the Adventists I joined theBaptist church at Otsego, Mich., and became its pastor till it was built up into aprosperous church. They have been my ardent friends to this day. Twenty years ago I movedto Grand Rapids, Mich., took a new mission and built this up, organized it into a churchwhich has become one of the strong churches of the city, having several hundred memberswith a fine edifice. Have twice been its pastor, always an active member. At present Iteach a large adult Bible class every Lord's day and often preach for them. Have alwaysbeen in perfect harmony with the church. They honor me as their father, consult me on allimportant matters, and hotly resent the foolish reports which some circulate concerningme.
Out of scores of printed testimonies before me I select only a few which speak forthemselves:
"Grand Rapids, Mich., Nov. 1, 1907. "To whom it may concern: "Havingreceived many letters from all parts of the United States from those that have beeninformed by Adventists that Rev. D.M. Canright was not a member of a Baptist church andmany other things pertaining to his character, we very emphatically denounce any suchstatements and will say that he is now and has been for many years an active member of theBerean Baptist church of this city and twice its pastor, a man above reproach and aboveall a noble Christian. "Respectfully, W. H. Andrews, former clerk and charter memberof the above named church. I hereby certify to the above. "REV. ROBERT GRAY,"Pastor of the Berean Church."
"Grand Rapids, Mich., April 9, 1910. "To whom it may concern, world wide:"DEAR BRETHREN: "This letter is to say that Rev. D.M. Canright has been known tothe undersigned for many years as an earnest, consecrated Christian man, and a trueminister of Jesus Christ. He has been 'a faithful and true witness' against the errors ofthe Seventh-Day Adventists in his books and tracts for many years. "OLIVER W. VANOSDEL, "Moderator Grand River Valley Association. "ALEXANDER DODDS,"President City Baptist Mission Society. "W.I. COBURN, "President BaptistMinisters' Conference."
The Baptists are not the only people who think well of the Rev. Mr. Canright. ACongregational minister adds his word: "This certifies that I have been acquaintedwith the Rev. D.M. Canright of this city for more than forty-five years. At least twentyyears of that time he was an Adventist preacher, and during those years his reputation asa Christian man and as a preacher of rare ability was of the highest order. His name amongthe Adventist people of this state was of the highest order. His name among the Adventistpeople of this state was a household word for righteousness of character, and an abledefender of their faith. And when he left the Adventist denomination, all who knew theman, if they were at all imbued with the Christian spirit, must admit that the change madeby him was due to a candid, conscientious conviction of what he believed to be right.There could be no other motive in his case, for he was successful beyond many of hisbrethren, and honored by them in the highest degree. For at least twenty years he and hisbeloved family have lived in this city and he has maintained the same reputation that hehad, as a Christian gentleman and respected citizen. What I have written is from personalknowledge of Rev. D.M. Canright and of the Adventist denomination in this state. "J.T. HUSTED, "Pastor of the Wallin Congregational Church. "Grand Rapid, Mich.,April 12, 1910."
The Methodist pastors add their tribute as follows: "Various inquiries having cometo the different members of the Association concerning the character and standing of Rev.D.M. Canright, the regular monthly meeting of the Methodist Ministers' Association ofGrand Rapids, Mich., did, by an unanimous vote, adopt the following expression of itsconfidence in and regard for the personal worth and ministerial usefulness of BrotherCanright. "Rev. D.M. Canright, formerly a minister in the Seventh-Day AdventistAssociation, more recently a minister in the Baptist Association of this city, has beenknown by some of our, number in person for several years and by reputation by the rest,and all our knowledge and information concerning him are of the most favorable kind."Any reflections on his personal character as a man, a husband, a citizen, a son or aChristian are without foundation, in fact, are unwarranted by any facts known to hisintimate acquaintances. He is honored among his brethren, respected in his own community,and is commended by us as being worthy of confidence and trust. He has had an honored anduseful ministry, and in no sense is deserving of the attacks made on him. "Done atGrand Rapids, Mich., this 11th day of April 1910, by the authority of the Grand RapidsMethodist Ministers' Association, by "JOHN R. T. LATHROP, District Supt."CHARLES NEASE, President. "J. R. WOOTEN, Secretary."
"Grand Rapids, Mich., April 11, 1910. "It is with sincere pleasure that Iwrite concerning the character and integrity of the Rev. D.M. Canright. I have known himand his family a good many years, and do not hesitate to say that they are very estimablepeople, and have the confidence of their neighbors and friends in the community. "Iconsider Mr. Canright a Christian gentleman in every sense of the word; a man of thehighest integrity and one who desires, in every project with which he is connected, tomake righteousness his guide to action. "He has done business with our bank for agood many years and I have personally had reason to test his integrity and am unequivocalin my express of confidence in him. "Very truly yours, "CHARLES W.GARFIELD." (Mr. Garfield is president of a bank with $2,000,000.)
Adventists sometimes say I left them four or five times. I withdrew from that churchjust once, no more, that was final. Their church records at Battle Creek and Otsego willshow that. For years I was troubled with doubts about some of their doctrines and threetimes stopped preaching for a period, but remained a member in good standing. At a largecampmeeting I was persuaded to swallow my doubts, take up the work again, confess that Ihad been in the dark, and go on again. I yielded judgment to the entreaties of my brethrenand the love I had for old associates and said what I soon regretted. I found it aterrible struggle to break away from what had held me so long.
Since I left them they try to make it appear that I did not amount to much anyway."Sour grapes," said the fox to the delicious fruit which he could not reach! Asa refutation of their detractions, see Chapter II of my book. I will here state only a fewfacts briefly:
During two years, 1876, 1877, I was one of the general conference committee of threewhich had control of all their work in the world. There is no higher authority in thedenomination. How did it happen that I was placed in that office if I was not one of theirbest men? Year after year I was elected on the boards having charge of their mostimportant institutions, such as their Publishing House, College, Sanitarium, SabbathSchool Association, etc., etc. For proof of this see their printed year books. where myname appear constantly. I was made theological teacher in their college, president of astate conference, associate editor of a paper, etc. I selected and arranged the course ofreading which all their ministers had to follow, and I was sent to the annual stateconferences to examine these preachers in those studies, in their theology, and in theirfitness for the ministry. Is such work usually committed to an inferior man?
But it was as a writer in their papers, as the author of numerous tracts, pamphlets andbooks covering nearly every controverted point of their faith, as a lecturer and debaterin defense of their doctrines, that I was the best known during the last fifteen years Iwas with them. In these lines, not a man among them stood as prominent as I did. Every oneat all familiar with their work during that period knows that I tell only the simple truthin the case. They know it, too. For my writings the office once paid me $500 in one checkand many other times different sums. After twenty-seven years they still publish and useseveral of my tracts as being better than anything they have been able to produce since.
My long and thorough acquaintance with Adventism and all their arguments prepared me toanswer them as no other could. Hundreds of ministers from all parts have written me theirthanks for the aid my book has been to them in meeting Adventism. Did not God in hisprovidence prepare me for this work? I humbly believe he did, and this reconciles me tothe long, and bitter experiences I had in that bondage. But if God and the truth ishonored, I am content.
The only question is, do I know their doctrines well enough to state them clearly, andhave I the ability to answer them plainly? Let my work be the answer.
Since I withdrew Adventists have published five or six different tracts to head off myinfluence. If I amount to so little, why all this effort? What they do refutes what theysay. God has preserved me to outlive nearly all the Adventist ministers with whom I beganlaboring. At seventy-five am full of faith in God and the hope of eternal life through ourlord Jesus Christ.
I love those brethren still and know that most of them are honest Christian people, butin error on many of their views. I would be glad to help them if I could.
D. M. CANRIGHT, Pastor Emeritus of the Berean Baptist Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
By Rev. Theo. Nelson. LL.D., late President of Kalamazoo College.
I met for the first time the author of "Adventism Renounced" in the autumn of1865. He was then a rising young minister in high favor with his people. Then, as now, Ihad entire confidence in his sincerity. Nor do I think it strange that, after more thantwenty years devoted to Seventh-Day Adventist propagandism, he should finally renouncetheir doctrines, and return to the orthodox faith. It is not necessary to impute anysinister or unworthy motives. Rather, it is easy enough to believe that experience andstudy, or the evolution of intelligence, as well as the irresistible logic of events,would inevitably bring to pass this result. Seventh-Day Adventists have always made agreat deal of the "signs of the times," of earthquakes and falling stars, of"wars and rumors of wars." Arguments which might profoundly impress theimagination of a youth during the troubled period of our great civil war, would naturallylose their hold upon the riper judgment of a man in these "piping times ofpeace."
Toward the Seventh-Day Adventists as a people I cherish none but feelings of kindness.Generally, their piety is undoubtedly genuine, though misanthropic and melancholy. Theytake a low view of human nature, and practically isolate themselves from their neighbors,and from those affairs which concern the well-being of society as a whole. They standaloof from every movement which looks to human progress, because they believe that humanprogress is impossible, and that mankind are already doomed; that destruction isimpending, "even at the door." In fact, their religious faith restrains, if itdoes not destroy, their sentiment of patriotism, and causes them to regard with suspicion,if not with feelings of hostility, the free government under which they live. Nothing canbe more absurd than their interpretations of current events, and, especially, their beliefthat our general and state governments are about to be converted into engines of religiouspersecution and despotism. It cannot be otherwise than that many sincere Seventh-DayAdventists, who have been such by what they believed the imperative necessity of Scriptureteaching, will be grateful to Mr. Canright for aiding them to put off a yoke which fetterstheir usefulness and galls their minds.
Seventh-Day Adventists believe and teach that before the second coming of Christ theUnited States will form a union of church and state, and, like France and Spain in theseventeenth century, will become a persecuting power. They hold that the propheticScriptures clearly foretell this extraordinary change in the form and spirit of ourgovernment. Touching the correctness of the interpretations of Scripture upon which theirexpectations are based, they admit no possibility of mistake. They assume to know thatthey have the right key to prophecy - that they have the "Present truth." Theybelieve and teach that the Seventh-Day Adventists are to be especially tried in thisordeal that is being prepared by the civil government; that they are to be the chiefvictims of the fiery persecutions that will be waged against the "Saints of the MostHigh"; that they are to suffer, at the hands of the secular power, imprisonments,tortures, "the spoiling of their goods," and perhaps death itself. Indeed, theystake their whole system of doctrine upon this meaning of the Word of God, and they regardthese momentous events, which they claim the Bible forecasts, as much a reality as thoughthose events had already transpired Those events are a reality to them and have the samevalue in argument, and the same authority in action, as history itself. In theirpublications and sermons they often adopt the style of the confessor who is alreadybrought to the scaffold, or bound to the stake; they speak out in a tone of defiant,heroic submission, as though the fagots were being kindled and the crown of martyrdom werein full view. To one who is familiar with the history of religious persecutions, and hasstudied the progress and development of religious freedom, especially in Anglo-Saxonnations; to one who is fairly acquainted with the spirit of the age and country in whichwe live, this ostentatious martyr-spirit of our Adventist friends seems quite absurd. Wereit not for their well known uprightness and probity of character, we should be disposed tochallenge their belief, such is their eagerness to find its proof and confirmation inevents which have no such meaning. Under our form of government would it be possible toachieve a more intimate and perfect union of "church and state" than is embodiedin the government of monarchical English? Such a change would be a greater miracle thanfor God to grow a giant oak in an instant. The trend of our civilization, the mostpowerful currents of public opinion, are all in the opposite direction. Yet, even inEngland, Adventists are free to publish their peculiar doctrines, to establish churches,and to pursue their vocations like other men. Religious freedom is the spirit of the age,and, most of all, the spirit of the age in America. Hence, we say, there need be no fearsfor the grave forebodings of our Advent friends.
THEO. NELSON.
Seventh-day Adventism originated about seventy-five years ago in the work of Mr.Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-4. Adding some doctrines to theoriginal faith, Elder James White and wife in 1846 became the leaders of the Seventh-daybranch of Adventism. Their headquarters were at different times at Paris, Me., Saratoga,Oswego, and Rochester, N.Y. In 1855 they settled permanently at Battle Creek, Mich., whichremained the center of the work till recently.
Their Doctrines
In doctrine they differ radically from evangelical churches. The main points are theseas taught in all their books: They hold to the materiality of all things; believe in thesonship of Christ; believe that they only have a correct understanding of the propheciesto which they give most of their attention; that the end of the world is to occur in thisgeneration; that we are now in the Judgment which began in 1844; that the Seventh day,Saturday, must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should paytithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible; that the Bible mustbe interpreted to harmonize with her writings; that they are called of God to give thelast warning to the World; that the dead are unconscious; that the wicked and the devilwill be annihilated; that all churches but their own are Babylon and rejected of God; thateverybody but themselves will soon become spiritualists; that when Christ comes only144,000 out of all then living on the earth will be saved, and all these will beSeventh-day Adventists. Hence, they have no fellowship with other Christians; never workwith them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.
They believe in the Bible, in conversion, in purity of life, in rigid temperance, instrict morality, and in other good things common to all churches. There are many excellentpersons among them. In character they are not to be compared with the spiritualists,infidels, etc., as is sometimes unjustly done.
The Extent of Their Work
Their Year Book for 1912 reports the following:
Conferences, 129; mission fields, 87; organized churches, 2,769; membership, 90,808;unorganized, 15,758; total, 104,528. Ordained ministers, 828; licensed ministers, 458;missionaries, 1,234; book canvassers, 1,697; total laborers, 4,346; Sabbath Schools,4,151; membership, 101,161; church schools, 594; students, 13,357; colleges and academies,86; students, 7,169; publishing houses, 28; employees, 610; sanitariums, 74; employees,1,989; tithes, $1,338,689.65; average per member, $12.81; contributions for missions, homechurch work, tithes and all funds by the denomination, $2,223,767.52.
They publish 121 periodicals in twenty-eight languages. Books and tracts published inninety-one languages.
The above will give a fair idea of the strength of that church. However, their mainefficiency is in the distribution of their literature. Every member, old and young, downto little children, is taught and urged to engage in every way possible in distributingthese tracts, papers and books through every possible channel. Every one believes he isdoing God's work when he does this. Hence every member is a missionary in some way. Theresult is their literature is coming to be widely scattered the world over. Yet theresults of all this tremendous outlay of money and work are very meagre. In the last fouryears with 4,000 laborers in the field, they have only averaged a gain of 4,000 membersper year, or one for every worker. They have been at work now for seventy-five years toget 104,000 members. The Mormons, starting about the same date, now number 500,000, nearlyfive times as many. The Christian Scientists, only about half as old, have over a millionmembers. There is very little real spiritual power in it. The work is done mostly by hardlabor and argument, not by any such mighty power as attended the work of the Apostles, orLuther, or Wesley, or Moody and many others. Their work now extends to all parts of thecivilized world and into many heathen lands.
The number of their actual converts does not tell the harm they do. Where they convertone they confuse a score, who after that have no settled faith in any church, and areuseless for any Christian work. Other conscientious persons are bothered and worried overit for years, not knowing what to do.
Their Hostility to All Other Churches
One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter hostility of itsbelievers towards all other churches. Their theory is that all churches but their own wereutterly rejected of God in 1844 for not embracing Miller's doctrine. Thus Mrs. White says:"I saw the state of the different churches since the second angel proclaimed theirfall [in 1844]. They have been growing more and more corrupt.... Satan has taken fullpossession of the churches as a body.... The churches were left as were the Jews; and theyhave been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity andvileness in the churches; yet they profess to be Christians. Their professions, theirprayers and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, Godwill not smell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by themwithout the reprovings of conscience." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 189, 190. Shesays it is the devil who answers their prayers. Thus: "I saw them look up to thethrone and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then breathe upon them an unholyinfluence." Early Writings, page 47. Again: "The nominal churches are filledwith fornication and adultery, crime and murder, the result of base, lustful passion; butthese things are kept covered." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligentpeople know that such statements are a misrepresentation of the evangelical churchestoday. Elder White says: "Babylon, the nominal church, is fallen; God's people havecome out of her. She is now the synagogue of Satan." Present Truth. April, 1850.
Hence they say that the revivals and conversions in the churches are largely adeception, the work of the devil, not of God. Mrs. White says of them: "The convertsare not renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will exult that God isworking marvelously for them, when the work is that of another spirit. Under a religiousguise, Satan will spread his influence over the land. HE HOPES TO DECEIVE MANY BY LEADINGTHEM TO THINK THAT GOD IS STILL WITH THE CHURCHES." Great Controversy, page 294, 296.On this the Review and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "we are aware that to assume thatthis revival work, so unquestionably accepted by all the churches, is not genuine, willcause the hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror.... If He [God] is with us, Hehas not been with the popular churches in any marked manner since they rejected the Adventmessage of 1843-4, and they are congratulating themselves over delusive appearances, and aprosperity which has no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two movements soantagonistic in nature."
Believing this, they eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut their eyes to anyfacts against it. So they rejoice at any unfavorable thing they can hear againstministers, churches, or members. They report it, repeat it, publish it, magnify it, andlive on it. To weaken, divide, or break up a church, is their delight. They heartily joinwith worldlings, infidels and atheists in their opposition to churches, and thusstrengthen their unbelief and help them to perdition. They have gathered up all the mostunfavorable things possible to find against the churches and put it in a book occupyingthirty pages, and this they hand out for all to read. It is sad to see honest men devotingtheir lives to such highly censurable work, which must please Satan well.
Who is Deceived?
Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived, to be led by Satan,when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the truth. It is amusing to see howinnocently they apply this to all others, and never dream that is has any application tothemselves! What, THEY deceived? THEY misled? Impossible! They KNOW they are right.Exactly, and that is just the way all feel, whether they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics,or what not. The Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with which peopleare misled.
Their Methods of Work
Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new fields. Being a novelty, theyattract attention. At first they present subjects which will offend no one till they gainthe confidence of the people. Gradually they introduce their peculiar dogmas, then comeout more boldly, till at length they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and theirpastors as hirelings and deceivers. They say these pastors cannot defend their doctrines;dare not try. They offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how they havescared this one, defeated that one, and silenced another. If in sermons the leastreference is made to them, they call it persecution, give out a review, and do everythingto provoke controversy. When the resident pastors are compelled to defend themselves, theAdventists claim to be greatly abused.
If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should enter a town and denounce allothers of his profession as quacks, fools, or deceivers, how would he be treated? Allwould combine against him as a common enemy.
This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks of the Adventists, becausecompelled to. Like Ishmael of old, the hand of the Adventist is against every man, andhence every man's hand is against them. Gen 16:12. It is useless for them to deny this,for all know it to be true. They all do it. I was taught that way and followed it, andtaught others to do the same.
Camp meeting. Adventists hold many camp-meetings yearly. Here their ablest speakerspreach their doctrines to thousands, and distribute their literature widely. They hire thepapers to print lengthy flattering reports of their meetings, which they write themselves.Their reporters are trained for this special work. They gain wide attention, and impressmany in this way.
Bible Readings. Hundreds of their men, women, and even young girls, are trained withprinted lessons which they learn by heart, to go from house to house and give Biblereadings. At first they conceal their real object and name, till they get a foothold. Thenthey cautiously introduce their tenets, work against pastors and churches, and lead manyaway.
Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass for their doctrinal books. The realnature of the book is studiously concealed, and the subscriber is deceived into buying aradical Advent book.
Distribution of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, privately, from tent orchurch, by book-agents, colporteurs, Bible-readers, or private individuals, in depots, onboats, in stores, or families, through the mails, by sale, loan or gift, their tracts arepersistently crowded everywhere.
Missions. They have Missions in many of the large cities and in foreign lands; but theyare largely proselyting agencies. They do little among the heathen, or for the destituteand fallen, but go into the best families to which they can gain access, and gather theconverts whom other missionaries have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs them: "Mistakeshave been made in not seeking to reach ministers and the higher classes with the truth....Educate men and women to labor for these higher classes both here and there and in othercountries." Testimony No. 33, pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his disciples into thehighways and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans, harlots and sinners; butMrs. White does not relish that kind. She wants them from "the ministers and higherclasses," "the whole who need no physician," those who can bring talent andmoney into the cause.
Where They Work. Adventists have the best success in new fields, where they are leastknown. Hence the western States is where they are most numerous. In New England, wherethey started, they have had to struggle hard to hold their own. In some of the olderfields they have lost in numbers, in others the gain is very small. In hundreds of placeswhere they were fair sized, active churches in the past, now no church at all, or astraggling, discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. This was theirheadquarters for forty years. Once there were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here, all united. Nowthere are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties, their influence entirelygone. The same is true elsewhere. About all the converts they make are at the outset.After a few years' acquaintance, they have no influence and few or none join them. Theirchurches grow smaller, generally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of theirchurches is 29 - exceedingly small; how different from the evangelical churches! Thelonger these are in a town the stronger they grow, and the more influence they havegenerally. But Adventism does not wear.
How to Meet Adventism
People are led into Adventism from lack of information. Hence, when Adventism enters atown the people should be told plainly what it is, what its effects are, and wherein it isunscriptural. Quite generally pastors make a mistake in letting it alone for weeks, tillit has gained a foothold. I always noticed that where the pastors united and workedagainst us on the start, we could do but little. So I would advise churches and pastors totake right hold of the matter earnestly as soon as people are interested in it. Preach onit; visit those who are being led away; hold Bible-readings; furnish them with properbooks and tracts. Sit down patiently and answer arguments. Visit them again and again.Adventists will work a whole year, will go a hundred times, will give them scores oftracts to proselyte one person. If we would work a tenth as hard, scarcely one would beled away. People love to be noticed. The very attention they receive from the Adventistsoften wins them more than their arguments.
What Will Be Their End?
Adventism is founded on time, and time will kill it. It began by setting a definitetime, 1844, for the end of the world, and failed. Now they hold that it must come in thisgeneration beginning in 1844. This is only another way of time setting. In time all thiswill fail and overthrow their system. Then will come doubt, discouragement, divisions,apostasies, infidelity, and ruin to souls. This end is inevitable. The wider theirinfluence now, the more terrible the disaster then. These wild, enthusiastic, fanaticalmoves which end in failure are the delight of Satan, as they bring disgrace upon the causeof Christ and end in infidelity. That such will be the end of Adventism I have not adoubt.
Lack of Education and Talent Among the Adventist Leaders
The men whom God has chosen to lead out in the great religious movements of the pasthave, with few exceptions, been men of high education, refinement, and great talents.Moses, the founder of Judaism, "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, andwas mighty in words and in deeds." Acts 7:22. Nehemiah, who restored Jerusalem afterthe captivity, was cup-bearer to the king. Neh 2. So Daniel, the great prophet, had"knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom." Dan 1:17. He was primeminister of a mighty empire for many years. Paul was so renowned for his learning, thatthe king said to him: "Much learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26:24. He did forChristianity ten times more than all the other apostles together. It is to him, and not tothe other apostles, that the Gentile world is indebted for Christianity. Then the twelve,though uneducated, had the advantage over all other reformers, that they were taughtdirectly by the Son of God, and could work miracles.
St. Augustine, A.D. 353-430, the father of Christian theology, to whom the church owesalmost as much as to Paul, was highly educated. As is well known, Luther was a thoroughscholar, educated in the best schools of his day, and filled a professor's chair in auniversity. So Calvin and Melanchton were both profound scholars, occupying professor'schairs in halls of learning. Zwingle, the great Swiss reformer, was celebrated for hislearning and scholarship. Wiclif [sp], the "Morning Star of the Reformation,"was a graduate of Oxford, England, and a doctor of divinity. Cranmer, the great Englishreformer, was a graduate, a doctor of divinity, archbishop, and regent of the kingdom.Wesley, the father of Methodism, was a graduate of Oxford, a man of vast reading, theauthor or editor of commentaries, grammars, dictionaries, etc. It is a false idea that Godgenerally uses ignorant men as leaders in reform, as the above great names will show.
Now look at the founders of our heretical sects. Joanna Southcott was whollyilliterate, a mere washer-woman. Ann Lee, the foundress of the Shakers, received noeducation, worked in a cotton factory, and was cook in a hospital. Joseph Smith, thefounder of Mormonism, received no education, and Brigham Young very little. Not one ofthese persons were of influence in the world, outside of their own deluded followers.
How is it with the leaders of Adventism? Wm. Miller, the founder, was reared in thebackwoods, in poverty, and received only the poor advantages of a common district school.Except some general reading, this was the extent of his education.
Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists' party, only secured sufficienteducation to teach a common district school. He was no student of books. In all my travelswith him, I seldom saw him read half an hour in any book. Of the languages or the scienceshe knew nothing, and little even of common history. Mrs. White received no schooleducation, except a few weeks when a child. She, like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, andJoseph Smith, was wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of grammar. Not one ofthe leading men in that work ever graduated from college or university, and many areilliterate as Mrs. White herself. Elder J.N. Andrews, Elder Smith, and one or two more, bydiligent study and reading out of school, became well informed men in their line. AfterElder White came Elders Butler and Haskell as leaders, neither of them educated men, norof half the natural talent of Elder White. The present leaders are small men also. Suchmen are poorly prepared to lead out in a great reformation in this educated age. Not a manamong them has now, or ever had, a particle of influence in the world, or any office orresponsible position in state or nation. How different from the great reformers of thepast, who often had extensive influence for good, not only with the masses, but with thegreat men and kings of earth. Hence, from whatsoever side we view Adventism, it has noneof the marks of a genuine reformation sent of God to bless the world.
Elder A.A. Phelps, for years editor of a First-day Adventist paper says: "Iwatched and waited, and worked, with patience, meakness and loyalty, in heartyco-operation, and with an earnest desire to see such unity, enterprise, breadth and moralpower, as ought to characterize a scriptural and heaven-inspired movement. How slowly andreluctantly I yielded to the conviction - forced by sad facts and illustrations that Ihave not even dared to detail - that I was only throwing away my life in stemming suchwaves of discord, indolence, looseness, narrowness, dogmatism and spiritual death as Icould not overcome."
Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, take warning from those whohave been through the mill, and stay out.
Later, 1914. Already strong men among them admit that, (1) Mrs. White had made manymistakes in her inspired (?) writing; (2) Now contradicts what she once wrote; (3) Hascopied from many other authors what she claims as revelations from God; (4) Has often beeninfluenced by others to write what they wanted to help their projects. Time has provedthis so clearly that it can no longer be denied. Hence her revelations are steadily losinginfluence with their able men. She is now eighty-seven years old and is reported as havinglargely lost her mind. The laity, specially in foreign lands, being ignorant of all thesefacts, still regard her as the voice of God to them.
I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this book, but could see no wayto tell my story without it. My experience illustrates the power which error andsuperstition have over men. I am amazed at myself that I was held there so long, after mybetter judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts,just as they were, hit whom they may. Public men become public property, and as such theirconduct and work should be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticizing thecourse of Elder White and wife, and others. They invite criticism by claiming to bereformers, better than other people.
I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 22, 1840. I had no religioustraining till I was sixteen. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev.Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon went to Albion, N.Y., to attend school.Here, in 1859, I heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath question. I wasuneducated, and knew but little about the Bible. I had no idea of the relation between theOld and New Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference between the Sabbath andthe Lord's day. I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding, and that therewas no authority for keeping Sunday.
As I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, but did not expect to believeany more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked onSunday. This separated me entirely from other Christians, and threw me wholly with theAdventists. I soon learned from them that all other churches were Babylon, in the dark andunder the frown of God. Seventh-day Adventists were the only true people of God. They had"the truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They defended Mr.Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, theannihilation of the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me, and Ithought of drawing back; but they explained them plausibly and smoothed them over, andsaid they were no test anyway. Having no one to intelligently aid me, I began to seethings as they did, and in a few weeks came to believe the whole system. I was againbaptized, as their converts from other churches generally are, so as to get clean out ofBabylon. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study ofall else, listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied my Bible day andnight to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed toconvert everybody to the faith. I had not a doubt that it was the pure truth. This isabout the experience of all who go with them, as I have since learned.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Mich.We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscolacounty, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. Up to this dateI had not a doubt about the truthfulness of our faith. As I now began to see more of ElderWhite and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble withhim. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he wasoften cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I wassent to Maine with Elder J.N. Andrews, the ablest man among them. This was a big thing forme. I threw myself into the work with great enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrewswas strong in the faith and very radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellentsuccess. By this time I had become quite a writer. I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. Atthat time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held toinvestigate the matter. It was clear to me that he was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained himin her "Testimonies" and severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews and a fewothers proposed to stand up for the right, and take the consequences. My sympathies werewith them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that "we have beenblinded by Satan." This was signed by the leading ministers, and humbly adopted bythe whole church. See "Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612. This shook my faith agood deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelationsalways favored Elder White and herself. If any dared question their course, they soonreceived a scathing revelation denouncing the wrath of God against them.
About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a party in the West, drew offfrom the body, in opposition to Elder White and the visions. They were denounced as"rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was predicted that they would sooncome to ruin! But they have continued their work for about fifty years, having severalthousand believers. Their headquarters are at Stanberry, Missouri, where they publish twopapers, books, etc. They have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs. White'sinspiration.
But I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience.Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, butfelt terribly. I wished I had never heard of the Adventists. Shortly I was back on myfield in Maine. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men whofirmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts. I have since learned that scores of othershave gone through a similar trial.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the trouble at headquarters, I got onfinely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape.Elder White was in trouble with most of the leading men, and they with him. I was wellconvinced that he was the real cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained him, and thatsettled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and must not be criticized or meddled with. Ifelt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called it; topersuade them that this was a people free from the faults of other churches; then to seesuch a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I myself had hadno trouble with any one, and Elder White had been very cordial to me. But I saw then thatif I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the sametreatment from him that all of the others got. The more I saw of the work, the moreobjections I saw to it. I will not stop to give them here, as I will give them together inChapter V.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines that I firmly believed theBible taught them all. To give up the Advent faith was to give up the Bible. So all mybrethren said, and so I thought. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained fouryears, laboring with Elder Butler, who soon became president of their general conference.We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to ElderButler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for weoften spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feelingbetter. Still, I came to see each year more and more that somehow the thing did not workas I had supposed it would and ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were alwaysin trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread to meet them, orhave them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some thing,and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the bestbrethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologize forthem continually. For years about this time, the main business at all our big meetings wasto listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped- Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host ofothers had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and timeswithout number, I have sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men,till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated all my ideas of right andjustice, and stirred my indignation. Yet, whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we allvoted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for mycowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an iron hand. Not a nomination tooffice, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon in business meetingsuntil all had been first submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, wenever saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, allofficial voting was only a farce. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any onedared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him. Longyears of such training taught people to let their leaders think for them; hence, they areunder as complete subjection as are the Catholics.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and discouragement, and tempted me toquit the work. I saw many an able minister and scores of valuable men leave us becausethey would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren whowent on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, infact, it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine. Many poor souls have gonethere full of faith and hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872 I went toMinnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was wellknown to all our people. In July, 1873, myself and wife went to Colorado to spend a fewweeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains. I soon found things very unpleasantliving in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling down, asmost of the others had, I told the elder my mind freely. That brought us into openrupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written"testimony" for wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placedus as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven only by a full surrender to them. Wifeand I read it over many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile itwith truth. It contained many statements which we knew were false. We saw that it wasdictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills or crush us. Forawhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and myfear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly miserable for weeks, not knowing what todo. However, I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I workedwith my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, Whiteand others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else todo, I finally decided to forget all my objections, and go along as before. So we confessedto Elder White all we could possibly, and he generously forgave us! But from that on myfaith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me againafter that.
Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, and this is one of the five.It is utterly untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdrawfrom the church nor renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most of theirleading men have left them, too, for they all have had their periods of trial when theyleft their work awhile. About 1856, Elders J.N. Andrews and J.N. Loughborough, who werethen the most prominent ministers among them, and several other persons, left the work andwent into business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. White gave an account of this in "Experienceand Views," pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and, after a long effort,brought them back. Mrs. White says: "A dissatisfied party had settled in Waukon....Brother J.N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone to work at his trade. He was justabout to purchase land," etc., page 222. These men did just what I did.
Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their ranks, also had his seasons ofdoubt, when he ceased to work, and engaged in secular employments. Hear his ownconfession: "That I have had in my experience occasional periods of trial, I do notdeny. There have been times when circumstances seemed very perplexing; when the way toharmonize apparently conflicting views did not at once appear, and under what have seemedfor the time strong provocations to withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the questionhow far this could reasonably be done, or how much of this work could consistently besurrendered." Replies to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words show that he hasdoubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did. For years we were on intimateterms; often traveled and labored together. We freely talked over these matters. Hisdoubts and trials were very similar to my own. This ran through a long period of years,till it was feared that he would quit them entirely. His wife was nearly driven toinsanity over similar trials. Finally they broke down, "confessed" the same as Idid once, and now profess to be satisfied. He wrote to me that he had to endorse Mrs.White's visions out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, that most of them at timesare more or less troubled over it, just as I was. In the language of J.W. Morton, "Ipity their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by which they and others areheld to the most unscriptural dogmas. Even Mr. Smith, for whom, however he may denounceme, I entertain only the most kindly feelings, is in a position that calls for tendercommiseration. He is expected, as the great man of the denomination (for he undoubtedly isby far the ablest man they have), to give a full and explicit endorsement of Mrs. White'sclaims of inspiration; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this point -especially he who has skill to 'read between the lines' - can see that his endorsement isso feeble as to be no endorsement at all. Such a position is one in which I would notplace my worst enemy. He is, in part at least, under the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh,that Uriah Smith had the courage, and the manliness, to assert, before God and man, hisright to that 'soul liberty' which is the inheritance of every child of God!"
Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place of Elder White as leader of thedenomination, got into trial with his brethren, and, practically, out of the work. Tillmiddle life he was a small farmer. Naturally he was a humble, good man, with a strongsense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White also turnedagainst him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he couldnot be an Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as others had decided.Disappointed and soured, under pretext of ill-health, he went off to Florida on a littlefarm - another example of the blighting effect of Adventism. He is now doing what I didtwo or three times, only from a different cause. Has he, then, left them?
In 1874 Elder White had arranged to have a big debate held at Napa City, Cal., betweenElder Miles Grant, of Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers. Though Elder White andwife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough, their ablest men, were there, they selectedmyself to defend our side, which I did for about a week, while the other ministers sat by.I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great atrial but a few months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now outwith Elder White, who took every possible opportunity to snub him; but I was in highfavor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio and Indiana. WithElder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 Iwas sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and so on through most of the Southern States, tolook after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. Thatyear I raised up a large church at Rome, New York, and labored over the State. Went withElder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent to Kansas to hold adebate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This year I was elected a member of theGeneral Conference Committee of three, with Elder White and Elder Haskell, and continuedon the committee two years. It is the highest official authority in the denomination.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches and did other work. Ispent 1878 in general work in various States, as Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa,Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall was president of the Ohioconference. In 1879 labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At thegeneral conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder Whitewas cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, fault-findingand trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was very little of the spirit ofChrist present. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more clearly that aspirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and dissension was the result of our work,instead of meekness, gentleness, and love among brethren. For the next whole year thesefeelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My workcalled me among old churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Generally they were coldand dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, or nearly extinct, where once they had been largeand flourishing churches. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go in the same way.One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go onand do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored thatyear in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave the Adventists, and, if I could, go with someother church. I was president of the Ohio conference. Our annual state meeting was atClyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon asthe meeting was over. Against my protest they re-elected me president. Mrs. White urgedit. Said I was just the man for the place; yet her special claim is to be able to revealthe hidden wrongs in the church. Here was an important matter. Why did she not have arevelation about it? No, I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned,went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Then she sent me along written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell, and one of the wickedest ofmen, though only two weeks before she thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers ofother churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. Iheld on to my Christianity and love for Christ and the Bible, and preached and worked as Ihad opportunity. I was glad I had decided to leave the Adventists, and felt much better.Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with ElderButler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as Ihad imagined. They said I was in the dark, led by Satan, and would go to ruin. All theinfluence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and weretoo strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die withthem. In my judgment and conscience I was ashamed of the surrender I had made, yet I triedto feel right and go on.
Death of Elder White
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost theleadership of the people. Elders Butler and Haskell had taken his place, and hence he wasvery hostile to them, working against them, and planning all the while to get them out andget back in again himself. But the people had largely lost confidence in him as a leader.He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the GeneralConference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was always acrafty, underhanded man. Elder White wrote me thus: "February 11, 1881 - I wish ElderHaskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "Battle Creek,Mich., May 24, 1881 - ...Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [hiswife] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be sufferedby our people to do as they have done... I want you to unite with me... It is time therewas a change in the offices of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true andfaithful, the Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that board."
I could give much more to show how little confidence the leading men had in each other.I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, hewrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, wheremany, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken apart in your destruction.... I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon afterthis he died. I have no doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent doctrine, andpersuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellentqualities, and doubtless meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule and runeverything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with some one.No one could work with him long in peace. Elder Butler told me that his death wasprovidential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at Butler, thatshe would have no communication with him for a long while. All these things helped me tosee that I was being led by selfish, ambitious men, who were poor samples of religiousreformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England, and Michigan, and waselected member of the State Executive Committee of Michigan that fall. I worked anotheryear in Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in thework. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided toquietly drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retainedmy membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory allthe time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I was not settled on any other church,and feared I might go wrong and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my oldfriend, and now at the head of the Advent work, made a great effort to get me reconciledand back at work again. He wrote me several times, to which I made no answer. Finally hetelegraphed me, and paid my fare to a camp-meeting. Here I met old friends andassociations, tried to see things as favorable as possible, heard explanations, etc.,etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I coulddo some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still,and I might go to ruin if I left them, etc. Now I resolved to swallow all my doubts,believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made astrong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel thatit was not so. But soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith cameback, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should everleave it again. In a few weeks I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, NewYork, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; wasappointed with Elder Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor successfully;conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Mass.; was at the statemeetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed tolecture before the theological class in the Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor ofthe 'Sickle'.
By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our ministers to some plan of studyin which they are very deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected thecourse of studies and framed all the questions, by which they were to be examined. I wasthen furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten different states,namely, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, andMichigan, to attend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report theirmeetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples atDes Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative man and holda debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor D.R. Dungan, president of DrakeUniversity. Our people selected me. We expected a notable time, and I made every possibleeffort to be ready. That preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some ofour positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our General Conference that fall, asharp division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party heldit was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law - a square contradiction. After a longand warm discussion the conference closed, each party more confident than before. Therewas also much disagreement over other points of doctrine, and a good deal of warm partyfeeling. This, with other things, brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me thatit was time for me now to examine and think for myself, and not be led nor intimidated bymen who could not agree among themselves.
I used every minute I could get for several weeks, carefully and prayerfully examiningall the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary, the visions, etc., till I had nota doubt left that the Seventh-day Advent faith was a delusion. Then I laid the matterbefore the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to bedismissed from the church. This was granted February 17, 1887. That was the first and onlytime I ever withdrew from the church, nor was any charge ever made against me during thetwenty-eight years I was with them. As soon as I took my stand firmly, to be a free manand think for myself, a great burden, which I had carried all these years, rolled off. Ifelt like a new man. At last I was out of bondage. I have never for a moment regretted thestep I took.
They now report that I left them four or five times before, and then went back. This isentirely untrue. From the time I joined them, in 1859, till I withdrew, in 1887, Iremained in good standing in that church. After I was licensed to preach in 1864, mycredentials were renewed each year except one, when I was farming and did not ask forthem. Till I left them, in 1887, I never preached nor wrote against them once; nor did Iunite with any other church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let them deny anyof these statements if they can. They say I may yet return to them. They know better. Themoment I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever. The fact that Iremained with them under all these trials for twenty-eight years, shows that I am not avacillating man, as they now try to think.
Why I Did Not Leave Them Sooner
I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner. Why it took me so long to find thatit was an error. Then the Adventists affirm that I must have been dishonest while withthem, or I am dishonest now. They say I am an apostate now, because I left them and joinedthe Baptists. My answer is this: If to change one's opinion and join another church makesone an apostate, then more than half their members are apostates, for they have come fromother churches to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate and commend highly a bookcalled "Fifty Years in Rome," written by a man who was many years a learnedpriest in the Roman church. They say that his high standing and long experience in thatchurch makes his book invaluable. But they say that the fact that I was with them in highstanding so long, and now have left them, only proves that I am a hypocrite!
Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their positions. I united with theAdventists when I was a mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, of history,or of other churches. I went into it through ignorance. For years my zeal for that faith,and my unbounded confidence in its leaders, blinded me to their errors. But, as I grewolder, read my Bible more, read history, met with other churches, heard sermons and readbooks against Adventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with the insideworkings of the church, learned more about its unfavorable origin, the many mistakes wehad made, saw the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society, got hold of theearly writings of Mrs. White and others; gradually I began to see that Adventism was notjust what I had first supposed it to be. When I embraced it in 1859, Seventh-day Adventismwas only fourteen years old, the believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. Butwhen Adventism was twenty-five years older, ten times as large, and had fully developedits spirit and shown its fruits, when I had had the education, observation and experienceof a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the matter ought to be worth more thanwhen I embraced it as a green boy.
Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained possession of earlyAdventist documents, which show how they now deny and contradict what they once taught.These are now either suppressed or kept out of sight, so that not one in a thousand ofthem knows or will believe that they ever existed. My doubts of the system did not come tome all at once and clearly. It was well known that for the last dozen years I was withthem, I was greatly troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidenceaccumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly andsorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it. God pity the soul that has to go throughwhat I did to be honest to his convictions of right.
Positions Which I Held When I Left Them
Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently had serious doubts abouttheir faith, yet, as soon as I took hold with them again, each time they immediately putme forward and set me at the most important work. Elder Butler says: "He doubtlesswould have been [elected to important office] had he not proved himself unreliable in somany instances. His ability would have justified it." Review and Herald Extra, Nov.22, 1887. Suppose, now, that I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place andposition than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone rightalong, pretending to be full in faith and in harmony with them. But instead of this, timeand again, I went directly to their influential men, Elders White, Butler, Haskell, etc.,and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was teacher of theology in theircollege at Battle Creek, where I had a class of nearly two hundred of their best youngpeople; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all theirSabbath Schools throughout the world; had the charge of some eighteen churches inMichigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the International Sabbath SchoolAssociation; member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath SchoolAssociation; and at the last session of the general conference was chairman of theInternational Sabbath School Association, and was on nine different committees, several ofthem the most important in the conference, as the one on distribution of laborers over allthe world, the theological committee, the one on camp meetings, on a special course ofstudy in our college, on the improvement of the ministry, etc. This shows what theythought of my ability. I had just gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes,"of which they printed an edition of 10,000 after I left them. Others of my works they haverevised, left my name off, and use them still. Why reprint mine after I have left them andrenounced what they teach? They now say that my writings are cheap and worthless. Butwhile I was with them they published over twenty different productions of mine, andcirculated hundreds of thousands of them, translated several of them into other languages,and paid me hundreds of dollars for them. Strange that all at once I have become soimbecile, and my writings so worthless. Any one can see the animus of all this.
Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left them at a time when mywithdrawal embarrassed them more than it would have done at any other time. This confessesthat I was becoming more and more useful to them, and all know that I was. At the time Ileft I was getting higher pay than ever before, and was on friendly terms with all. Allthe leading men, as Butler, Haskell, Smith, etc., were my warm personal friends, ready todo all in their power to assist me. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had todo was to go right along without wavering, and positions would come to me faster than Icould fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make aliving? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I couldmaster to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leaveall my life-long friends, the cherished hopes of my youth, the whole work of my life, allthe means of my support, every honorable position I held, and bring upon myself reproach,hatred and persecution. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, with untried methods,uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can ever begin to realizethe fearful struggle it requires. It is the dread of all this which holds many with themwho are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is so, for many have confessedit to me, and yet remained where they were. Anyone of candor and fairness can see readilythat self-interest and personal ambition would have held me with them. Yet, as soon as Idid leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, andeven spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives,base sins, and ambitious designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred duty to blast myreputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apostate" was the epithetall applied to me. I was compared to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan and Abiram, to Judas, Demas,and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest or worthy motive was granted me. Themeanest and wickedest reports were circulated as to what I had done or said - things thatI would despise even to think of. Yet all were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubtedtruth. But I expected it, for it is the way all are treated who dare to leave them andgive a reason for it.
During the twenty years now since I left them, they have had spies constantly on mytrack, who have watched and reported the least thing I have said or done, to torture itinto evil, if possible. This they circulate to the ends of the earth, and it comes back tome in newspapers and letters. They have issued four different publications against me, andMrs. White, in her last "revelation," has devoted three articles to myself! YetI don't amount to anything; never did! "Sour grapes," you see. It has beenwidely reported that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up my church, beenexpelled from the denomination, and more yet, concerning all which the Lord judge betweenus. The pastors of all the churches here, and public men of the place have had to makewritten statements to meet these attacks in distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hardto bear, but knowing that I was right, I have had grace and patience to keep steadily atmy work, and leave the rest with God and my friends.
I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country, saying that theAdventists affirm that I have asked to be taken back among them! They will report it tillI die, and long after. This book shall be my answer. They are so certain that the curse ofGod will follow all who leave them, or that they will become infidels, or return to them,that they cannot be reconciled to have it otherwise.
A Sample Letter
"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889. D.M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.: My Dear Friend and Brother - If the lightning's shivering crash had torn my scalp loose from my head, I would not have been more surprised than I was today by having placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Sabbath." I have read after you for years, sold your valuable works, and preached the "Third Angel's Message." Now, I wish to ask you, how do our people treat you? To my knowledge you were a great favorite, and quoted oftener than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you as hard as they did on Snook? I suppose that your great research and life-long study of the subject in hand goes for nothing with them, and that you are classed among the fallen angels. F.A.B."
Ordained a Baptist Minister
April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for eight years, I was ordained asa minister of the Regular Baptist Church, by an exceptionally large council, composed ofseveral of the ablest ministers of the state. The 'Otsego Union' of that date says:"Regularly appointed delegates were present from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids,Kalamazoo, Plainwell, Three Rivers, White Pigeon, Allegan, Battle Creek, Paw Paw, HickoryCorners, Prairieville and Otsego. Rev. A.E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was electedmoderator of the council, and Rev. T.M. Shanafelt, D.D., of Three Rivers, secretary. Theorder of exercises was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev. H.A. Rose, ofKalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of Grand Rapids; ordination sermon, by Rev.Kendall Brooks, D.D., President of Kalamazoo College; prayer of ordination, by Rev. M.W.Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with laying on of hands by Rev. H.B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev.E.A. Gay, of Allegan, and Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; hand of fellowship, by Rev. T.F.Babcock, of Prairieville; charge to the pastor, by Rev. L.B. Fish, of Paw Paw; charge tothe church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand Rapids.
"Rev. D.M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a large and representativecouncil as a regular Baptist minister, and pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego."
I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one moment had the slightestdesire to return.
Largely, people are drawn into the Seventh-day doctrine through fear, fear of beingdamned if they refuse. Once in, they try to feel happy, but very few really are. With alarge class, the more intelligent ones, there are so many doubts and fears, such asensible want of something which they do not find, that they are unhappy. Many of theirministers have gone through the same trials that I have, and scores have left them, as Idid, while others have fixed it up and remained with them. Elder White himself had doubts.Mrs. White says of him: "He should make it a rule not to talk unbelief ordiscouragement." "My husband has cherished this darkness so long by living overthe unhappy past, that he has but little power to control his mind when dwelling uponthese things." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 96, 97. Mrs. White herself, as we mightexpect, is troubled with infidelity. She says: "In the night I have awakened myhusband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I,page 597. Nearly all their prominent ministers had their time of trial, the same as I did,when they ceased preaching and went at other work, as we have seen.
I will quote a few words from letters received: "I have had many blue times in myexperience because of these doubts.... Once I decided that I must follow the convictionsof my own judgment in these things; but when the time came the pressure was so strong thatI tried to convince myself that I was wrong.... The facts are, I am just miserable.... Itseems like a terrible thing to take a course that will cause all the cherished friends ofthis world to look upon you as one fallen from grace; and here I am, bound with thesechains." Another writes: "It seems to me that the views held by Seventh-dayAdventists are so burdensome that they will crush me. They are a yoke of bondage which Icannot stand up under. Still I do want to be right." Another minister, D.H. Lamson,writes: "How am I straightened, while the fetters are being forged for most unwillinglimbs!... What distress we are in as a people! how miserable! and is there norelief?" And still another talented minister, W.C. Gage, writes me: "Ourministers, and people as well, are growing to be a denomination of hypocrites, by aslavish fear of expressing an honest belief.... I am sick and disheartened.... The basisof confidence is gone, and I shall only await the outcome of the matter." Stillanother, Uriah Smith, writes: "There is a fear, on the part of the powers that be, offree thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and disgraceto us." And yet these brethren patch up the matter some way, and go right on asthough nothing were wrong. I know how to pity them, for I myself have passed throughprecisely the same experience. And another writes: "I wish I had never heard theAdvent doctrine preached. Previous to that, I know that I did enjoy the blessing of God. Iwas not troubled about doctrine.... I think I then had some influence for good overothers, but I fear my change of faith had a bad influence over my children." Strangeto say, these are the very men who now denounce me the worst because I had the courage ofmy convictions, while they haven't.
These are fair samples of how scores among them feel, from men in leading positions, tothe humblest in the church. Largely they keep it to themselves, but occasionally it willout. Many of them almost get out, and then fall back, to linger along in bondage all therest of their lives. "But if these persons are in such bondage, why not break loose,and be free? Who would harm them? Be it remembered that there is a bondage worse thanAfrican slavery - the bondage of religious tyranny and superstition. I was held there foryears, and know its power.
Milton F. Gowell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of Advent experience, that I quotehim in a letter to me. I was often at his father's house, in Portland, Me.; when he was aboy. He says: "My recollections of those days are full of the terrors of law,prophetic charts, Mrs. White's visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform,bloomer dresses, and a great zeal for being industrious on Sunday, and little or nothingof Christ. All the DOING was indelibly impressed on my mind as a boy, but the BELIEVING onChrist for salvation, and RESTING in his finished work, I have no remembrance of whatever.How many there are that join the Seventh-day Adventists utterly unsaved, knowing nothingof the grace of God, hearing always barely the law. I joined them at the age of fourteen,under conviction, guilty before God, but unsaved, though I was baptized and received intothe church as a SABBATH KEEPER. I received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest bybelieving about three and a half years ago; saved from the borderland of infidelity."This is just the impression which all the children of that people are receiving - coldlegalism. While this young man was finally saved from infidelity, hundreds of them arenot, as I well know.
Prominent Persons Who Have Left the Adventists
It is nothing new for men to leave a party, good or bad; but so large a number ofprominent persons have left the Adventists as to excite surprise. It is clear that theremust be something wrong in the system itself. First, according to the best of my judgment,from one-third to one-half of all who begin the observance of the Sabbath, sooner or laterabandon it.
At different times large numbers have left them, mostly on account of Mrs. White'svisions. We will name a few of the ministers who have departed from them: J.B. Cook andT.M. Preble, the pioneers who started the movement, both renounced it; O.R.L. Crozier, AnnArbor, Mich., has renounced the Sabbath; Elder B.F. Snook, the leading man in Iowa, is nowa Universalist; Elder W.H. Brinkerhoof, of Iowa, has renounced the faith; Elder MosesHull, the ablest speaker they ever had, is now a Spiritualist, and Elder Shortridge, aminister of much talent, has also gone the same way; Elders Hall and Stephenson, at thetime very prominent in the work, went to the Age-to-Come party; C.B. Reynolds, of NewYork, has become a noted blasphemer; Elder H.C. Blanchard, Avilla, Mo., renounced thedoctrine; ditto T.J. Butler, of the same state; Elder L.L. Howard, Maine, H.F. Haynes, NewHampshire, left them; Nathan Fuller, Wellsville, N.Y., became a libertine; M.B. Czechowskiwent to Europe and died in disgrace; H.F. Case, Elder Cranmer and Philip Strong, all ofMichigan, left them.
Elder J.B. Frisbie, their pioneer and most efficient preacher for years in Michigan,finally left them. Dr. Lee, of Minnesota, who inaugurated the work among the Swedes, nowopposes them. Elder A.B. Oyen, missionary to Europe, and editor of their Danish paper, hasrenounced the faith. Living right at the head of the work for many years, he had the bestof opportunity to know all about its workings. Elder D.B. Oviatt, for many years presidentof the Pennsylvania Conference, renounced the faith, and is now a Baptist minister.
So Elder Rosquist and Elder Whitelaw, both of Minnesota, have recently left them andgone to the Baptists. Other ministers of the West have also gone over to the Baptists.C.A. Russell, Otsego, Mich., an excellent man, once preached that doctrine with me, but isnow a Methodist. H.E. Carver, H.C. Blanchard, J.W. Cassady, A.C. Long, Jacob Brinkerhoof,J.C. Day, H.W. Ball, Goodenough, Bunch, and others, once members of that church, havewritten against it. Elder Hiram Edson and Elder S.W. Rhodes, noted pioneers in the work,died confirmed cranks, and a trial to the church. The sad example of their leadingministers who have been guilty of adultery, proves that their church has nothing to boastof over other churches in the purity of its ministers and members.
Their College Professors
They have been very unfortunate in their college professors. Professor S.S.Brownsburger, the first Principal of their College at Battle Creek, Mich., which positionhe occupied for years, and then filled the same position in their college in California,is now wholly disconnected from the work. Elder W.H. Littlejohn, who next stood at thehead of the college, was expelled from the church and fell into doubts. Next cameProfessor A. McLearn as head of the college. He has renounced the faith, and now opposesthem strongly. Professor Vesey, a learned teacher in that college, has forsaken the faith.Professor C.C. Ramsy, born in that faith, was professor of mathematics in the Battle Creekcollege for three years; then filled the same place for three years in their college inCalifornia; then was called to take charge of their academy in the East, which he did forthree years more. He was editor of their educational journal, prominent in Sabbath Schoolwork, and many other ways. He has renounced that faith, but remains an earnest Christian.Others of their teachers of lesser note have also left them. What is the cause of suchresults? There must be something wrong.
Their Physicians
They have been equally unfortunate with their physicians in their sanitarium at BattleCreek. Dr. H.S. Ley, an excellent man, was the first physician-in- chief. He left theinstitution in a trial, and was out of work for years. Dr. Wm. Russell, a talented doctor,came next. What he there saw of Adventism made him an infidel, and he was dismissed. Next,I believe, came Dr. M.G. Kellogg. The treatment he received drove him into scepticism foryears. Then came Dr. Sprague and Dr. Farfield, both of whom renounced the faith, and, Ibelieve, are sceptical now. Mrs. Lamson and Miss Fellows, both matrons of the sanitarium,lost faith in the doctrine. Dr. Smith, brought up in the faith, renounced it. Here againwe see that education unfits men for Adventism. I am not acquainted with another churchwhich has lost so large a proportion of its most prominent men. Every year, nearly, sofar, more or less have gone away from them, till they have lost more talent than nowremains with them.
It Leads to Infidelity
A strong argument with Adventists is, that most of those who leave them becomeinfidels, as all know. But, after long watching, I became satisfied that it is Adventismwhich has made them infidels. Look at Romanism. Wherever it has had sway a while, itfilled the land with infidels. Go among the Mormons at Salt Lake. Large numbers of theirchildren are becoming infidels. The natural rebound from fanaticism and superstition isinto infidelity and scepticism. Right here in Otsego we have several infidels, thegrown-up children of Adventists. I know them and meet them all over the country, and theirnumbers are increasing. I feel sure that the ripe fruit of Adventism in the years to comewill be a generation of doubters.
Their Church Backsliding
Seventh-day Adventists claim to be raised up of God, to reform the church of to-day.They claim to be purer, more spiritual, and on a higher plane than other Christians. Allother churches are Babylon and apostates, while they are the chosen saints. But now, aftertheir church has had only fifty years trial, and hence is still small and young, and soought to be better than older and larger churches, I can quote confessions from their ownwriters, proving that they are as wordly, backslidden and corrupt as they make out otherchurches to be. I will give a few. Elder G.I. Butler, in the Advent Review, May 10, 1887,says: "A terrible stupor like that which enveloped the disciples in the Saviour'sagony in the garden, seems to hang over the mass of our people." Mrs. White, inTestimonies, Vol. I, says: "The Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from thechurch," page 113; "The churches have nearly lost their spirituality andfaith," page 119; "I saw the dreadful fact that God's people were conformed tothe world with no distinction, except in name," page 133; "Covetousness,selfishness, love of money, and love of the world, are all through the ranks ofSabbath-keepers," page 140; "Vital godliness is lacking," page 153;"There is but little love for one another. A selfish spirit is manifest.Discouragement has come upon the church," page 166; "Spirituality and devotionare rare," page 469. Many of them are not even honest. She says: "As I saw thespirit of defrauding, of over-reaching, of meanness, even among some professedSabbath-keepers, I cried out in anguish," page 480; "There is but littlepraying. In fact, prayer is almost obsolete," page 566; "Not one in twenty ofthose who have a good standing with Seventh-day Adventists, is living out theself-sacrificing principles of the word of God." page 632. Of the Battle Creek churchshe says: "I can select family after family of children in this house, every one ofwhom is as corrupt as hell itself." "Right here in this church corruption isteeming on every hand," Vol. II, pages 360, 361; "Sin and vice exist inSabbath-keeping families," page 391; "We have a dwarfed and defectiveministry," Vol. IV, page 441. In Testimony, No. 33, just published, Mrs. White says:"There is a deplorable lack of spirituality among our people.... There has been aspirit of self- sufficiency, and a disposition to strive for position and supremacy. Ihave seen that self-glorification was becoming common among Seventh-day Adventists,"pages 255, 256. Thus as they grow older, the have to confess to all the weaknesses andshort- comings which they have so eagerly charged against other churches.
I could quote whole pages of such confessions as these from Mrs. White and theirleading men. They are compelled to say it. It is common in their camp- meetings to seehalf their members forward as backsliders. Their preaching is largely scolding theirmembers for their coldness. In fact, the thing is a practical failure in whatever way youlook at it. Are they any better, any more spiritual, than the regular churches which theydenounce so? No, as the above shows. After being well acquainted with both, I sayconfidently that there is as much devotion and spirituality among the Evangelical churchesas among Adventists.
If, then, these things in the other churches prove that they are Babylon, they provethe same of the Advent church, too. (See Appendix A)
Every little while, from the days of Christ till now, individuals, and often largesects, have arisen, proclaiming the Second Advent at hand and themselves the God-appointedmessengers to warn the world. Right on this point Jesus warned his church: "Take heedthat no man deceive you.... The end is not yet." Matt. 24:4-6. Yet right away it wassaid that Jesus would come before John should die. John 21:23. The Thessalonians had to becorrected by Paul for expecting the Advent immediately at hand. II Thess. 2:1-8.
In the middle of the second century arose the Montanists. The Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia says: "Ecstatic visions announcing the approach of the Second Advent ofChrist... were set forth as divine revelation." Art. 'Montanism.' Like Seventh-dayAdventists, they adopted a severe discipline - condemned the wearing of ornaments,intercourse with the world, etc. They created a great sensation, obtained a numerousfollowing, and flourished for a century or more.
Tenth Century Adventism
The following is from the "History of the Christian Church," by M. Reuter,D.D., Century 10, Chapter 2, pages 202, 203: "Among the numerous opinions, however,which disgraced the Latin church and produced from time to time such violent agitations,none occasioned such universal panic, nor such dreadful impressions of terror or dismay,as a notion that prevailed during this [tenth] century of the immediate approach of theday of judgment." "Public and private buildings were suffered to decay, and wereeven pulled down, from an opinion that they were no longer of any use, since thedissolution of all things was at hand."
The Fifth-Monarchy men of England, about 1660, "believed that the time was near athand when, to the four great monarchies of Daniel's prophetic vision, was to succeed thefifth, which was to break in pieces all others, and to 'stand forever.'" Johnson'sEncyclopedia, article Fifth-Monarchy Men. They undertook to set up the kingdom byoverturning the English government.
The Irvingites of England "declare the speedy coming of Christ;" have"prophets," "revelations," "tongues," "gifts,"etc. They have gathered large congregations and are spreading over the world.
Swedenborg, Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, Joe Smith, etc., all made the speedy advent ofChrist the ground-work of their systems, as is well known. Hence, movements of this kindare nothing new.
Seventh-day Adventism originated in the well-known movement of William Miller, who setthe time for the end of the world in 1843-44. They claim now that Mr. Miller's move wasright, and in the providence of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same workwhich he began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their origin, andendorse the work of the Millerites in 1843 and 1844. The following from Mrs. White willsettle the point: "I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of theLord, and that it should not be altered; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in someof the figures." Early Writings, page 64. God helped them make the mistake! "Isaw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I.,page 133. So God wanted them to set that time! "I saw that they were correct in theirreckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844." Page 107. Again:"The Advent movement of 1840-44 was a glorious manifestation of the power ofGod." Great Controversy, Vol. IV., page 429. Elder White says: "We hold that thegreat movement upon the Second Advent question, which commenced with the writings andpublic lectures of William Miller, has been, in its leading features, in fulfillment ofprophecy. Consistently with this view, we also hold that in the providence of God, Mr.Miller was raised up to do a specific work." Life of Miller, page 6. So it will beseen that Seventh-day Adventists still believe in and defend the Millerite movements of1843 and 1844. Indeed, they claim that all other churches who did not accept and endorseMiller's work were rejected of God on this account. Thus Mrs. White: "As the churchesrefused to receive the first angel's message [Miller's work], they rejected the light fromheaven and fell from the favor of God." Early Writings, page 101.
Here, then, we have the origin of Seventh-day Adventism, the fountain from which itflowed. As a stream will be like its fountain, let us examine it. Elder and Mrs. White,Elder Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, Holt, Edson, and all the founders of the Seventh-dayAdventist Church were in the movement of Miller, and helped in setting and preaching thetime in 1843, 1844, and carried the Advent work right on afterwards.
The work of Mr. Miller is so well known, that I need but refer to the facts about it.William Miller was born at Pittsfield, Mass., 1782, but he was reared at Low Hampton, N.Y.He was a farmer, with only the poor advantages of a country school. He united with theBaptist church. About 1831 he claimed that he had discovered by the prophecies the exacttime, the very year, and, finally, the very day when Christ would appear and the end ofthe world would come. He succeeded in converting perhaps fifty thousand people to hisviews. The first date fixed was 1843. It failed. Then he fixed a day in October, 1844, andthat failed. Many other times have since been fixed by Mr. Miller's followers, and allhave failed. Over fifty years have come and gone, and the end has not come yet.
What was the one great burden of Miller, the one point on which he differed from theEvangelical churches? All these churches believed in the personal Second Advent of Christjust as strongly as Miller did. They loved Jesus and preached the Second Advent, eventeaching that it was near at hand. But the Millerites said they knew the TIME when it wasto be, and that time was 1843- 4. They staked all upon this. The issue was plain anddefinite. All who did not endorse their SET TIME were "opposers,""enemies," "in the dark," "evil servants," rejected of Godand lost, just because they would not believe in setting a time for the end. Here areMiller's words: "I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand....Between March 21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation oftime, Christ will come." Life of Miller, page 172. Jesus says: "Ye know not whenthe time is." Mark 13:33. But the Millerites thought they knew better than JesusChrist did. So they condemned all who did not agree with them. Here is a mild sample ofwhat they said and the spirit that possessed them: "This is God's truth; it is astrue as the Bible." "There is no possibility of a mistake in this time.""Those who reject this light will be lost." "Those who do not accept thisargument are backsliders," etc. History of Advent Message, page 596. And this is thespirit that has followed them ever since - a harsh, denunciatory spirit against all whodid not agree with their figures, interpretations and theories.
But their set times came and passed without the least regard to their figures andfacts, proofs and demonstrations, prayers and predictions. Remorseless old Time, the truetester of every theory, marched right on and demolished them all. This demonstrated thefolly and error of the Adventists. Miller's prediction was a wretched abortion. Hepreached and propagated a falsehood. He preached that the world would end in 1843, and itdidn't. He set 1844 for it to come, and it didn't. If ever a religious movement on earthwas demonstrated to be a humbug and a failure, it was Millerism. But if Millerism was afailure, then Seventh-day Adventism is also, for that was the fountain from which this hasflowed; that was the foundation on which this is built. Deut. 18:22: "When a prophetspeaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is thething which the Lord hath not spoken." This, surely, is a simple and fair test. Bythis rule the Lord was not in Miller's move.
"But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident that they were right?"Confident is no name for it. They were SURE that they were right, they KNEW they wereright, for they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. The Bible saidso; to deny it was to deny the Bible. But it failed all the same. It is just so withSeventh-day Adventists now. They are the most positive people in the world, though theyhave made scores of terrible blunders.
That no one will know the time of the second advent is as plainly taught as words canteach. Read the following: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not theangels of heaven, but my Father only;" "Watch, therefore: for ye know not whathour your Lord doth come;" "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour asye think not the Son of man cometh;" "Watch therefore, for ye know neither theday nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Matt. 24:36,42,44; 25:13. "Takeye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. "It isnot for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his ownpower." Acts 1:7. Jesus said, "Ye know not when the time is;" Miller said,"We know when the time is." Jesus said, "It is not for you to know thetimes or the seasons;" Miller said, "We know all about them." Jesus said,"No man knows the day;" Miller said, "We know the exact day." Whichwas right? The disappointments of the Adventists, time and again, during the past fiftyyears, in setting the date for the end of the world have clearly demonstrated their folly.The whole Advent move was conceived in error, born in a mistake, has grown up in folly,and must die in disgrace. "But were not the Millerites honest?" There is nodoubt of it, but that proves nothing as to their correctness.
The Fruit of Millerism
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Millerism, for about four years, in afew states, created a great excitement. Churches were divided and broken up, pastors lefttheir flocks to "lecture" on "time," while argument and strife werethe order of the day. As the time set drew near, in thousands of cases, the Adventists notonly left their work and their business, but gave away their property. Crops were leftungathered, goods were distributed freely, so that many who had been well to do were leftpenniless. After the time had passed, these were destitute and their families suffered.Many had to be arrested and put under guardianship, to protect their families. Then thewildest fanaticism broke out here and there, which brought disgrace upon the very name ofreligion. Many said the Lord had come, probation was ended, it was sin to work, allproperty must be held in common, all the churches were apostate, Babylon, etc. SomeAdventists had spiritual wives, some went to the Shakers, many went back into thechurches, some into despair, and hundreds into doubt and infidelity - just what might havebeen expected. The glorious doctrine of the Second Advent was covered with shame, Satanrejoiced, while the cause of Christ was greatly injured. For proof of these facts, I referto the testimony of thousands now living, and to the published works of the Adventiststhemselves. Thus Elder U. Smith is compelled to say: "The Advent Body were a unit [in1844] and their testimony shook the world. Suddenly their power was broken, their strengthparalyzed. They passed the point of their expectation, and realized not their hope. That amistake had been made somewhere, none could deny. From that point the history of amajority of that once happy, united people has been marked by discord, division,confusion, speculation, new mistakes, fresh disappointments, disintegration andapostasy." The Sanctuary, pages 13, 14.
Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." I Cor. 14:33. Then surely hewas not the author of Adventism, for the confusion it produced is unparalleled inreligious history. Ten souls were ruined by it where one was saved. Immediately after 1844they split up into numerous parties, each contradicting and condemning all the rest.Instead of renouncing the whole thing, as sane men ought to have done, each one sethimself to find some "explanation" of their mistake. Hardly any two agreed,while each one was sure he had the true explanation. Their utter confusion is wellillustrated by the following anecdote told by Mr. Miller himself: The first person in hisown parish who fully embraced his views was an old woman, an humble Christian. Mr. Millersent her his papers when he had read them. One week he received sixteen different sheets,all purporting to be Advent publications, but the most of them advocating contradictorysentiments. He sent them to the old woman. Soon she sent for him, and on his arrivalbegan: "Have you read all these papers?" "I have looked them over.""But are they all Advent papers?" "They profess to be." "Well,then," said she, "I am no longer an Adventist. I shall take the old Bible andstick to that." "But," said Mr. Miller, "we have no confidence inone-half there is advocated in these papers." "We?" exclaimed the old lady,"who is WE?" "Why," replied Mr. Miller, "WE are those who do notfellowship these things." "Well, but I want to know who WE is." "Why,all of us who stand on the old ground." "But that ain't telling me who WE is. Iwant to know who WE is." "Well," said Mr. Miller, in relating the story,"I was confounded, and was unable to give her any information who WE were."History of Second Advent Message, pages 414, 415.
And so it has continued unto this day. What do Adventists believe? Go ask what languagewas spoken by the people after the Lord confused their tongues at Babel. Adventism is asecond Bable[sp]. But Seventh-day Adventists say "We are united; we believealike." Partly true, but they are only one branch of this Advent Babel. Such a broodof errors and heresies as has resulted from Adventism, cannot be found in the history ofthe church before. Time- setting, visions, miracles, fanatics, false prophets, sleep ofthe dead, annihilation of the wicked, non-resurrection of the wicked, future probation,restoration, community of goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism,no organization, etc., etc. Gracious! And these are the people sent with a"message" to warn the church! They had better go back and learn and agree onwhat their "message" is, before they run to deliver it.
The other Adventists have set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 1844, 1847,1850, 1852, 1854, 1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick ofcounting. Learning nothing from the past, each time they are quite as confident as before.
This fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine of the Second Advent, sothat it is not dwelt upon as much as formerly in other churches. The study of theprophecies has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the Adventists. Nothoughtful man can fail to see this.
Seventh-day Adventists and Time-Setting
It is the one constant boast of the Seventh-day Adventists that THEY never set time;THEY don't believe in it. But they deceive themselves and deceive others when they say so.Elder White, their leader, engaged in preaching three different set times for the Lord tocome, viz., 1843, 1844, 1845. here are his own statements on this: "I found myselfhappy in the faith that Christ would come about the year 1843." Life Incidents, page72. Then he tells how he preached it. Of 1844, he says: "I stated my conviction thatChrist would come on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month of that year [1844]."Pages 166, 167. "It is well known that many were expecting the Lord to come at theseventh month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly believed. A few days before thetime passed, I was at Fairhaven and Dartmouth, Mass., with a message on this point oftime." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' by James White, page 22. So their leader was atime-setter. Mrs. White, their prophetess, was in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. Sheherself says: "We were firm in the belief that the preaching of definite times was ofGod." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 56. Of the first date she says: "Withcarefulness and trembling we approached the time when our Saviour was expected toappear." Then she tells her disappointment. Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 48. Again:"Our hopes now centered on the coming of the Lord in 1844." Page 53. She was atime- setter. Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-dayAdventists were in the time-setting of 1843, 1844. They still endorse Miller'stime-setting of 1843 and 1844 as right and approved of God. How much truth, then, is therein their assertions that they have never set time? But they say, "WE did not keep theSeventh-day when WE set time; therefore WE never set time!" That is too thin. Thethief says, "I did not wear this coat when I stole the sheep, therefore I never stolehim!" They say that they have given the THREE messages. Well, the first message wasin 1844 when they set time. Are they the same people, or are they not?
Again they endorse Mr. Miller's work as of God. But Miller is responsible for all thetime-setting done by the Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimateoutgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it the second time. He taught themhow to do it. He fathered the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They thensimply took up and carried on what he had begun. Seventh-day Adventists claim to be theoriginal Adventists, and endorse Miller's work. In doing this they endorse time- setting,and should justly bear all the odium of that fanatical business.
But don't Seventh-day Adventists rise to explain why they were disappointed in 1843,and again in 1844, and for forty years since? O, yes; but we naturally become a littlesuspicious of the man who is compelled to be constantly explaining his conduct. Straightworks needs no explanation. They say the Lord caused them to be disappointed in 1843, onpurpose to test their faith, that was all! In 1844 they made just one little mistake, thatwas all! They then taught that the earth was the sanctuary. Come to find out, thesanctuary us up in heaven, and Jesus did really come, in a certain sense, that very year!So they were right, after all. Don't you see? Clear as day. Now they have the whole matterremoved from the troublesome facts of earth, where we can test them, to the beautifultheories of heaven, where no one can go to report on facts which might spoil theirtheories. Now they can speculate and argue in safety. But sober, thinking men see throughall this. It is merely a make-shift to get out of a difficulty.
Miller's Confession - He Opposes Seventh-day Adventism
All the other Adventists long ago renounced the 1843-4 time-setting as an error. Thus:"The majority of Adventists took the position that the TIME was an error of humanjudgment." History of the Second Advent Message, page 383. Hear Mr. Miller himself:"On the passing of my published time, I frankly acknowledged my disappointment.... Weexpected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were notmistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I haveno confidence in any of the new theories that grew out of that movement, namely, thatChrist then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is nosalvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet sounded, OR THAT IT WAS A FULFILLMENT OFPROPHECY IN ANY SENSE." History of the Advent Message, pages 410, 412.
From this we see: 1. That Miller, the founder and leader of that move, owned that itwas an error. 2. He repudiated the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in anysense. 3. He especially points out the Seventh-day Advent position as utterly wrong. Heknew all about their arguments of the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc.,and yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his people against them, so thatvery few of the original Adventists ever accepted them. Hear Mrs. White herself on thispoint: "I saw leading men watching William Miller, fearing lest he should embrace thethird angel's message and the commandments of God. As he would lean towards the light fromheaven, these men would lay some plan to draw his mind away. I saw a human influenceexerted to keep his mind in darkness, and to retain his influence among them. At lengthWILLIAM MILLER RAISED HIS VOICE AGAINST THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN." Spiritual Gifts, Vol.1, page 167.
Thus the father and founder of Adventism condemned and opposed the position whichSeventh-day Adventists took with regard to his own work. He had sense enough to see, andhonesty enough to confess, that it was a mistake. But they will not have it so. They knowbetter than he himself. They will have it that it was a wonderful fulfillment of Rev.14:6,7. Miller denies it. Thus it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists give aninterpretation to Miller's work which he himself condemned. Not a leading man in Miller'swork ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists, but have always opposed themas fanatical and as a side issue. None of the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism, such asWhite, Andrews, Bates, Rhodes, etc., were ever of any note in Miller's work, though theywere all in it; yet afterwards they claimed to be the only ones who had the right view ofit. All the rest were "in the dark," "foolish virgins,""apostates," etc. How modest!
Mistakes of Adventists
A people who have made as many mistakes as Adventists have, ought to be very modest intheir claims, and ought to see that they have been led by men and not by the Lord. 1. Theyset the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. 2. They set it again in 1844and failed. 3. Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, set 1845 for theend, and failed again. 4. They held in 1844 that the earth was the sanctuary, anothermistake, as they admit now. 5. They all held for some time after 1844 that probation forsinners was ended - a fearful mistake. See chapter 8 of this book. 6. For ten yearsSeventh-day Adventists began the Sabbath at 6 P.M., instead of at sunset as now. Thus theybroke the Sabbath every week! 7. They kept their children out of school for years, becausetime was so short they would need no education. Those children now have grand-children! 8.They gave away their goods in 1844, because they would not need them after that! 9. Theywould not vote, for that was like the fallen churches. Now they vote freely. 10. They heldthat it was wrong to take a church name, for that was Babylon. Now they have a name. 11.Church organization was wrong, for that was like Babylon. Now they organize. 12. For yearsthey said it was denying their faith to set out trees, for they would never grow to bearfruit. 13. Led by a revelation from Mrs. White, the sisters put on short dress with pants.None of them wear it now. 14. For thirty years they would not take up any collection onthe Sabbath. Now they do it every week. 15. For fifty years they have been expecting theend of the world to come inside of five years, and it has not come yet. 16. They saidJesus would come to the earth in 1844. Now they say that was a mistake; he came tojudgment in the sanctuary above. Thus: "The Adventists of 1844...thought thebridegroom would come; and THEN HE DID COME - not to this earth, as they incorrectlysupposed, but to the MARRIAGE." "They simply mistook the KIND of coming referredto." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 13,14. He owns that: 1. They gotthe time wrong in 1843. 2. The place wrong. 3. The event wrong. Now let him add, 4. Thewhole thing wrong, and he will be right! 17. Then they said the door was shut, Matt.25:10; now they say that this was wrong; it is open yet. Thus: "There can be no otherplace for the shut door but at the autumn of 1844." Elder White, in Present Truth,May 1850. "The door is still open, and other guests may come." U. Smith, inParable of the Ten Virgins, page 17, February, 1889. These are the people who always KNOWthey are just right! 18. They once adopted a rigid vegetarian diet - not meat, no butter,only two meals per day, etc., but it was a failure. It killed many and ruined more, tillthey had to modify it and live like other people.
These are only samples out of numerous mistakes the Adventists have made; and this theyhave done with an inspired prophetess right at their head for forty-four years! Thesesimple, undeniable facts alone should be enough to open the eyes of all to see that theLord has not led them in their work.
1. It was born in a mistake. The origin of Adventism was in the Millerite time-settingof 1843 and 1844, which all know was a mistake.
2. That work produced great fanaticism, and wrought disaster to thousands of souls.
3. Out of that movement has grown a whole brood of errors, as they themselves willadmit.
4. Seventh-day Adventism is a system of popery - one-man power. From the first, ElderWhite took this position, and molded the whole system to fit it. He would and did rule anddictate in everything in all the field. He would make it hot for one who dared to startanything which he had not bossed. He was head and president of everything. So now a fewrun everything. Their word is law. It is contrary to the Gospel, and has resulted in themental degradation of the mass of that people. A few think for all.
5. The mere word of Mrs. White, an uneducated woman, is accepted as the voice of God tothem dictating in everything. "As for my people, children are their oppressors, andwomen rule over them." Isa. 3:12.
6. From the start, Elder and Mrs. White would take up publicly the faults, real orimaginary, of any one and every one, ministers, editors and all, and expose them beforethe whole congregation. If any objected, they were "rebels." All this was thenprinted in her "Testimonies" as inspired, and circulated for all to read. Thishas begotten in all a habit of criticising and fault-finding, which is reprehensible tothe last degree. Any one might have foreseen that it would result in this. Mrs. Whiteherself now says: "There has been a picking at straws. And when there were no realdifficulties in the church, trials have been manufactured." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page144. "Love for one another had disappeared, and a fault-finding, accusing spirit hasprevailed. It has been considered a virtue to hunt up everything about one another thatlooked wrong, and make it appear fully as bad as it really was." Page 164. Mrs. Whiteherself has set the example, and she is largely followed, till they are a denomination offault-finders.
7. It is a fundamental doctrine with them that all the other churches are apostate andcorrupt. Hence they are eagerly on the watch for every evil thing they can pick up againstthem. This is poor business, and it begets in themselves a hard, unlovely spirit.
8. They are constantly on the watch for all the evidence they can gather, showing thatthe world is rapidly growing worse. This again has a bad effect on themselves, tending tomake them sour and gloomy.
9. Their ministers are mere lecturers, going from place to place, staying only a fewweeks at a time, and repeating the same old sermons over and over. As a consequence theybecame narrow and small and dry. Their preaching is almost wholly doctrinal andargumentative. This makes them hard and combative, instead of tender and charitable.
10. Their churches are very small, generally numbering from fifteen to forty. They haveno pastors, and seldom any preaching. Their meetings are held on Saturday, when others areat work, hence not a soul attends except themselves. So their meetings are small and dulland tiresome, especially to youth and children. Never mingling with other churches, theysoon fall into a rut and become very dry. The great mass of them are uncultured, and theirlocal leaders are farmers or mechanics. The decorum seen in other churches is generallywanting in theirs. Their children are noisy, and often the members too. This is not good.
11. Their theory compels them to be narrow and uncharitable. They cannot work at allwith other Christians in anything. This is another bad feature of that system. Theycondemn all Christian workers who do not follow them. See how Jesus rebuked that narrow,bigoted spirit: "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devilsin thy name, and he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not, for there is no manwhich shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is notagainst us is on our part." Mark 9:38-40.
12. In a community they have no influence whatever over the irreligious. Not one ofthem attends their meetings; not a child outside of their own families attends theirSabbath schools. Other churches, by their public meetings, sermons and schools on Sundays,have a mighty influence for good over the unconverted.
13. Their work is largely proselyting. Truly, "they compass sea and land to makeone proselyte." They will work just as hard to get a good old Christian out ofanother church as they will to convert a sinner. They tear down more than they build up.
14. They count all lost who reject their "message." Their missions of whichthey boast so much are the dread of all other missionaries, as they work as hard toproselyte members from churches as they do to convert raw heathens or sinners. Thus, oftheir "mission" in London, Elder Haskell says: "Thirteen have taken theirstand on the Sabbath.... These have come principally from the Church of England."Review, April 10, 1888. Yes, their converts are always "principally" from otherchurches. I became sick of such work.
15. By their arguments they confuse the minds of many, so that they know not what tobelieve. They set them against other churches, and so they drift away from all and areentirely lost. Adventists have done a large amount of this work, and their influence inthat line is fearful.
16. Many of their children grow up to keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor to attendany church, and hence they become irreligious.
17. Sunday-breakers who hunt, fish, sport or work that day, are encouraged in it by thearguments and examples of the Adventists. This certainly is evil. A community whereSabbatarians live has no quiet rest-day at all.
18. The power of God does not attend the Advent work as it should, if it is His specialwork. During my long experience with them, I was impressed with the fact that, as a rule,the work was exceedingly dry and powerless. This disheartened me greatly. I saw that itwas so with all their ministers, from large to small. Their year book for 1888 shows thatthey did not average one convert to each minister!
19. In fields where they have been the longest and are best known, they have the leastsuccess. As soon as it is well understood what it really is, they can do nothing.
20. The apostles, the reformers, and others whom God has sent, have built up largesocieties, and wielded a great influence for good in society. But the Adventists never do.They have no influence for good on society. This feature of the work often troubled me.Notice how the heretical and fanatical sects generally withdraw themselves from community,and build up a little exclusive society by themselves. See the Shakers, the Mormons, theOneida Community, the followers of Mrs. Southcott, etc. Seventh-day Adventists become alittle exclusive party in any community where they are. They go by themselves, and takepart in almost nothing which interests others. Take my own town as an example. They havehad a church here for thirty years, numbering from fifty to seventy-five. They take nopart nor interest in any social, literary, moral, sanitary, temperance or religious workoutside of their own. They are never thought of as helpers in any such necessary and noblework. They never attend a prayer meeting, a revival effort, or a Sabbath School excepttheir own. The Young Men's Christian Association, which is wholly unsectarian, is doing anoble work to save the young men of the place. Not one Adventist attends or takes interestin it. On the contrary, the Adventist store is open for trade, and thus becomes a resortfor idlers and Sunday breakers. In whatever way considered, their influence is detrimentalto the best interests of religion and good society.
How different it was with the followers of the true reformers, Luther, Wesley, Calvin,etc. They stood with the people, worked for them, and made society generally better.
The moment a person becomes a thoroughly converted Seventh-day Adventist, he is spoiledfor any further usefulness in society. This is their record everywhere, as all willtestify who know them. To convert men to their doctrine is the all-absorbing passion oftheir lives, leaving them neither interest, time nor means for anything else.
21. I came to see that the great burden of Adventists was about merely speculativetheories concerning which they cannot KNOW positively that they are correct after all.Such are their theories about the sleep of the dead, destruction of the wicked, thesanctuary in heaven, the time when Jesus will come, their interpretation of the imagebeast of Rev. 13:11-18, the mark of the beast, etc. Do they KNOW that they are right aboutthese? No, they think they are, and others equally honest, pious and intelligent, thinkdifferently. I came to feel that it was foolish for me to spend my life over what afterall I did not know was really so. But we do know that it is right to evangelize theheathen and the vicious of our cities, to save the drunken and fallen, to preach Christand convert sinners, and to work for everything that will improve the condition of men andsociety NOW. But with Adventists these things are secondary or neglected entirely, whilethey constantly put their pet theories first and dwell upon them most of the time.
22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them is held also by allevangelical churches, such as faith in God, in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holylife, self-denial, etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by those doctrineswhich are peculiar to Adventist, as the TIME of the advent, the condition of the dead, theSabbath, the visions, etc.
23. Having been disappointed so many times and so long, taking so gloomy a view ofthings generally, they are as a class a very discouraged and unhappy set of people.
24. It is "another gospel," Gal. 1:6, which the apostles never preached. Iwas long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from theapostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paulin all his fourteen epistles mentions it but ONCE, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it!"We find in the New Testament 'preach the gospel,' fifty times; 'preach Christ,'twenty-three times; 'preach the word,' seventeen times; 'preach the kingdom,' eight times;'preach the law,' or 'the Sabbath,' not once!" Warner.
25. They are unpatriotic. Not a soul of them, man or woman, in field or hospital,lifted a finger to aid in putting down the rebellion or slavery. They staid [sp] at homeand found fault. See Mrs. White's Testimonies, Vol. 1, pages 253-268. If a man had gone towar he would have been expelled from the church, for Mrs. White forbade it. Hear her:"I was shown that God's people, who are his peculiar treasure, cannot engage in thisperplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith." Testimonies,Vol. 1, page 361. They hold that our nation is "the beast" of Rev. 13:11-18,which will soon become a tyranny. Mrs. White says: "The nation will be on the side ofthe great rebel leader," the Devil. Testimony No. 31, page 132. So they all feel.
26. Their false ideas of Sunday leads them to join with infidels, atheists, Jews,saloon-keepers and the irreligious generally in opposing any restriction on Sundaydesecration. It is one of the anomalies of the age to see a Christian church unite withthe worst elements of society and the enemies of Christ, to oppose the best interests ofsociety and the sacrificing work of the most devout and intelligent of the land. What is areligion good for, anyway, which spoils a person for all practical usefulness in society?What does it mean to "love your neighbor"?
The Adventists and the Prophecies
The Adventists claim great light above all others on the prophecies. The old women andthe little children among them confidently believe that they know more about theprophecies than all the commentators and scholars in the world. They can tell exactly whatevery horn, and wing, head and tail, trumpet and vial, beast or angel in all theprophecies means! Any possibility of mistake? Not the slightest. And yet probably nopeople ever made as many mistakes in the same length of time as Adventists have.
Consider how little critical knowledge of exact historical dates and facts commonpeople really possess. The great mass of intelligent business men, farmers, mechanics,mothers and housekeepers, would be poor judges in such matters. Most of them know nothingabout it. They could not intelligently dispute any statement a lecturer might make on suchpoints. These Advent preachers go before such an audience night after night for six oreight weeks, with their positive statements boldly made and often repeated, till theirdeluded hearers think them to be the most wonderful historians, and accept theirstatements as undoubted truths! So of their Bible readers, who go from house to house toexpound the deep things of God. I know them well, have taught many of them, and have beenin their training schools. Many of them could not get a third grade certificate, nor havethey ever read a volume of history. They simply learn by rote, parrot-like a lesson whichthey repeat glibly to the astonished farmer or unread mother. Get them off this track andthey are dumb. They are like those whom Paul rebuked, "Desiring to be teachers of thelaw; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim. 1:7. Thisfits them exactly. (See Appendix B and C.)
Seventh-day Adventists lay great stress upon their interpretation of this symbol. Rev.13:11-18. Their theory of the mark of the beast, and his image, the seal of God, the ThirdAngel's Message, and all their special work about the Sabbath is built upon theirassumption concerning that beast. If they are mistaken here, their whole system collapses.They claim that this beast is the United States, and that soon we shall have here churchand state united, the image of the beast, the papacy. The mark of the beast isSunday-keeping. A law will enforce this upon Seventh-day Adventists. They won't obey. Thenthey will be outlawed, persecuted, and condemned to death! Of all the wild Adventspeculations in the prophecies, this deserves to stand among the wildest.
1. Does the Bible SAY that this beast is the United States? Oh, no; they have to assumeand argue out all this.
2. Do they KNOW that their arguments on this are infallibly correct? No.
3. Were their leaders quite as sure in 1843, and then again in 1844, that they wereright? Yes; and yet they failed both times.
4. Have they not made many mistakes in interpreting the prophecies? Yes; many of them.
5. Did not Elder White, their leader, set three different times for the end of theworld, and fail in all? Yes.
6. May they not then POSSIBLY be mistaken also in this? Of course, as they must admit.So their system rests upon an uncertainty. Or are they infallible?
7. Do our hopes of heaven depend upon such uncertainties as these? Would it not besafer to follow the plain precepts of Christ (Matt. 7:24,25), than to turn after theseuncertain speculations? Better than to follow the lead of Adventists who have been makingmistakes over and over again for eighty years? "Take heed that no man deceiveyou." Jesus. Matt 24:4. I will offer a few out of many facts showing that theirapplication of this symbol is not correct.
While Seventh-day Adventists largely quote and follow the leading commentators andProtestant churches in their application of the other beasts, here they take a wild leapinto the dark, unsupported by one single biblical scholar. Evidently this lamb-like beastrepresents the Papacy, or the spiritual and ecclesiastical power of the Roman church, andis so applied by every commentator I have consulted. Thus: "This beast is thespiritual Latin empire, or, in other words, the Romish hierarchy." Clarke, on Rev.13:11. "It was, therefore, the emblem of the Roman hierarchy." Scott, on Rev.13:11. "The generality of interpreters confine this second beast to the papalpower." Eclectic Commentary on Rev. 13:11-18. "An exact description of the riseof the spiritual power of the Papacy." Notes on Rev. 13:11, by the American TractSociety. "The beast with two horns like a lamb is the Roman hierarchy, or body of theclergy, regular and secular." Joseph Benson. "The two-horned beast or Romishchurch." Bishop Newton. Albert Barnes the same. Indeed, there is a perfect agreementamong all commentators that this lamb-like beast represents the Papacy. For the argumenton this I only need refer the readers to the commentaries.
Against this unanimous agreement of all Protestant churches and authorities, you havethe unsupported speculations of the Adventists, who have made so many mistakes before. Theproofs that this lamb-like beast is the Papacy are many, clear, and easily seen; while theeffort to apply it to the United States is labored, and the arguments strained, long, andfar-fetched. Thus, in U. Smith's "Thoughts on Revelation," he devotes onlyELEVEN pages to the dragon of Chapter 12:1-17, and only EIGHT pages to the leopard beastof Chapter 13:1- 10, but wades heavily through OVER ONE HUNDRED PAGES on the eight versesrelating to the two-horned beast! This alone is proof of the desperate task he had on handto prove that it was the United States.
Beginning with Rev. 11:19, and ending with Rev. 14:5, is a line of prophecy reachingfrom the First to the Second Advent - the dragon, the leopard beast, and the lamb-likebeast. The dragon, Chapter 12:1-17, is the pagan Roman empire. So all agree; Seventh-dayAdventists as well. The dragon had "seven heads and ten horns." Verse 3. This issucceeded, Chapter 13:1-10, by the leopard beast with "seven heads and tenhorns." What is this? Evidently the same Roman empire, the same ten kingdoms ofEurope, with merely a change of religion from pagan to Catholic. Thus, Dr. Clarke:"The beast here described is the Latin empire, which supported the Romish or Latinchurch." On Rev. 13:1. So says Scott and all I have seen. This was the civil orpolitical power of the ten kingdoms after professing Christianity. That this ten-hornedleopard beast is not the Papacy nor the Catholic church, is shown by Rev. 17:1-5, wherethe same beast is again introduced with a woman riding on and ruling over it. The beast isthe civil power, while the woman is the church. Even Elder Smith had to confess this. Hesays: "We here have the woman, the church, seated upon a scarlet-colored beast, thecivil power by which she is upheld and which she controls and guides to her own ends as arider controls a horse." On Rev. 17:1-5. So, then, the leopard beast is the civilpower. Just what it is in Rev. 17 is what it is in Rev. 13. Did the Papacy have ten horns?Did it have seven heads? No, but political Rome did.
That the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13:11-18 is not the United States at all, but is thePapacy , or ecclesiastical and spiritual power of the Romish church, is manifest. 1. Rev.17:1-5, where the woman, the church, is distinct from the ten-horned leopard beast andrules over it, shows that the beast is not the Papacy. 2. Just so; the lamb-like beast ofRev. 13 rules through the power of the leopard beast. 3. Whatever the woman is in Rev. 17,that is what the lamb-like beast is in Rev. 13. Hence, they both are the papal power ofRome.
Notice the similarity of the two: a woman in one place, a lamb in the other, bothhaving the appearance of gentleness and innocence. The church is represented by a purewoman, II Cor. 11:2, and by lambs, John 21:15; false religious teachers are represented bybad women, Rev. 2:18-23, and by beasts clothed like sheep, Matt. 7:15. The woman and thebeast work together in Chapter 17; so the lamb-like beast and the leopard beast worktogether in Rev. 13:12,14. The woman is drunk with the blood of saints, Rev. 17:6; thelamb beast causes the saints to be killed, Rev. 13:15. The woman is burned with fire, Rev.18:8; so is the lamb beast, Rev. 19:20. The woman sits upon the beast, guiding and rulingit, Rev. 17:3; so the lamb beast "exerciseth all the power of the first beast,"Rev. 13:12. It does not simply exercise SIMILAR power, or AS MUCH power as the beast, butit uses the power of the beast itself, the same as the woman did. He does not himself killanyone, but CAUSES them to be killed, Rev. 13:15. This is exactly what the Papacy did. Itruled over the kings of the earth, Rev. 17:18, and "caused" heretics to be putto death by the secular power. "He exerciseth all the power of the first beast."
It has ever been the boast of the Roman church that SHE never puts heretics to death.She simply anathematizes them, turns them over to the civil powers, and by her influencewith these, CAUSES them to be killed by the secular powers. How exact is the language: he"causeth" it to be done; "he exerciseth [or useth] all the power of thefirst beast."
Seventh-day Adventists argue that the leopard beast, Rev. 13:1-10, is the papacy,because it does the same work as the little horn of Dan. 7:8,25, which is agreed by all tobe the papacy. But they overlook the fact that the leopard beast does all its work simplyas the agent of the church, the woman in Rev. 17, and the lamb-like beast in Chap. 13.Hence, of course, it does the same work that the little horn of Dan. 7 does.
Notice the inseparable connection between the leopard beast and the two- horned beast,the Roman civil government and the Papacy. 1. The lamb-like beast controls all the powerof the first beast. Verse 12. 2. He does this in the presence and in the sight of thebeast. Verse 12,14. This shows that both occupy the same territory. 3. He causes men toworship the beast. Verse 12. 4. He causes men to make an image to the beast. Verse 14. 5.He causes men to receive the mark of the beast. Verse 16,17. 6. The two beasts are workingtogether when Christ comes. Rev. 19, 20. 7. Together they go into the fire. Verse 20.
Evidently, then, these two beasts operate together in all their work. This is preciselywhat the Catholic church and the Catholic political powers of Europe have done for ages,as all know. Has the United States ever thus cooperated with the papacy? Emphatically, no.Is any man fanatical enough to believe that it ever will? The papacy has exactly fulfilledevery specification of the lamb-like beast. 1. It came up in the right place "in hispresence." Diaglott, Bible Union, Living Oracles, etc. 2. It came up at the righttime after the wounding of the head. Rev. 13:3. The interpretation adopted by Clarke,Scott, and the best authors, "refers it to the extinction of the old Roman Empireunder the imperial form in the latter part of the fifth century, and its revival againunder Charlemagne." Notes of Am. Tract Society. 3. The papacy came up in the rightmanner, peaceably and quietly. 4. It had the appearance of a lamb. 5. It has spoken like adragon. 6. It has exercised all the power of civil Rome. 7. It brought the earth insubjection to Rome. 8. By its great signs and wonders it has deceived millions for ages.9. It has made an image to the beast. 10. It has caused millions to be killed. 11. It hasimposed its worship and mark upon all. 12. It has prohibited heretics from buying orselling. This is too well known to require proof.
The lamb-like beast is not the United States; because 1. "This two-horned beastsymbolizes a religious or ecclesiastical government. The false prophet of Rev. 19:20performs the same work as this beast (see verse 14), and therefore must be identical withit. This is admitted by Seventh-day Adventists. Now, as a prophet is a religious teacher,a false prophet must be a false religious teacher; and as this applies to a government, itmust therefore apply to an ecclesiastical government. Such the United States is not, forits government is PURELY political; for one clause of its constitution is as follows:'Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof.'" The Two-Horned Beast, by A.C. Long.
2. The manner of its rise. The lamb-like beast comes up quietly and peaceably "outof the earth," Rev. 13:11, while the other beasts come up out of the troubled sea.Rev. 13:1. So the papacy came up quietly at first, with all the appearance of a lamb, butafterwards it spoke like a dragon. Witness its persecutions and tyranny. Not so with ournation. It was born in a terrible war of seven years. Then followed the war of 1812, thewar with Mexico, the war of the Rebellion, and war with Indians almost every year. Notvery peaceable.
3. It was to exercise ALL the power of the first beast. Seventh-day Adventists say thatthe first beast is the Papacy, which put to death over fifty million people, ruled overother kings, and over the consciences of men. Even Adventists do not believe the UnitedStates will do this.
4. "Church and state must be united. This is against one of the fundamentalprinciples of our government. The constitution expressly forbids it, consequently it mustfirst be changed. And will the intelligent voters of these United States, with the historyof past ages before them, deliberately change one of the main pillars of our government,and raise up the Inquisition, the block, the rack, etc., and thus put to death manypersons, simply for their religious faith? It does not look reasonable." A.C. Long.Besides, all the tendency of the age is against a union of church and state.
Arguments Answered.
1. "The two-horned beast must be the United States, because it can apply nowhereelse."
ANSWER: It applies admirably to the Papacy.
2. "There must be some symbol to represent this great nation."
ANSWER: There is none for Russia, for Mexico, Brazil, Japan, China, and a dozen othernations, most of them professing Christianity too.
3. "The United States came up at the right time, about 1798, when the headreceived its deadly wound. Rev. 13:3."
ANSWER: This very point overthrows the argument for the United States; for that woundwas given at the very rise of the leopard beast, more than 1,200 years before 1798. Lookat verse 3-10; all the work of the beast comes AFTER the wound and not BEFORE. Thislocates the rise of the lamb-like beast just when the Papacy rose.
4. "The United States came up in the right place."
ANSWER: This is exactly what it DID NOT DO. The beast is located in Europe, and a wholeocean rolls between the two; whereas the two-horned beast was to come up "in hispresence," in Europe, not America.
5. "Our government has 'come up' from small beginnings to a wonderfulnation."
ANSWER: The Papacy began much smaller, and has 'come up' to be much larger.
6. "Our government is lamb-like."
ANSWER: So was the Papacy in its rise and all its professions. A lamb in appearance, adragon at heart, fits Rome much better. Our government does not put on sheep's clothes tohide wicked designs. It acts openly and boldly. But the Papacy professed outwardly to be ahumble follower of the Lamb, while inwardly it was a dragon.
7. "No crown on his horns. Hence it must be a republic - the United States."
ANSWER: The ten-horned beast of Dan. 7 had no crowns, yet all were kingly governments.So the dragon, Rev. 12:3, had no crowns on his ten horns, yet all were kingly governments.So there were crowns upon his seven heads, yet several of these heads represented forms ofgovernment that had no crowns. So this argument fails.
8. "Spiritualism has wrought miracles here."
ANSWER: The miracles of spiritualism are a humbug, nor are they in any way recognizedor used by our nation in making laws. But in the prophecy the miracles are wrought by theofficial authority, and not by private individuals, wrought to secure and enforce laws forpersecution. Verse 14. Spiritualism does not do this. And surely our nation will neverlower itself to the working of miracles by official authority! But papal Rome has aboundedin lying miracles, by which she deceived her followers for ages. Our nation is now overone hundred years old, and, according to Adventists, five or ten years more will end itswork. But out of eight verses of the prophecy only ONE is yet fulfilled, is our nation. 1.The beast was to come up. Fulfilled. 2. He was to come out of the earth. Fulfilled. 3. Wasto have two horns. Not fulfilled. 4. Was to look like a lamb. Fulfilled. But thesespecifications are much better fulfilled by the Papacy than by the United States.
5. Was to speak as a dragon. Not fulfilled. 6. Was to exercise all the power of thefirst beast. Not fulfilled. 7. Must cause the earth to worship the first beast. Notfulfilled. 8. Must do great wonders. Not fulfilled. 9. Must bring fire from Heaven. Notfulfilled. 10. Work miracles. Not fulfilled. 11. Id to make an image to the beast. Notfulfilled. 12. The image is to speak. Not fulfilled. 13. To cause all to be killed who donot worship the beast. Not fulfilled. 14. To cause all to receive the mark. Not fulfilled.15. To prohibit all from buying or selling who do not have the mark. Not fulfilled.
Out of FIFTEEN points only FOUR have been fulfilled, and these relate simply to itsrise. Of all the work it was to do, not a thing has been done yet. Adventists are alwayssaying that the rest is just about to be done. But in the past forty years not one singlepoint has been fulfilled, nor is there the least prospect that it ever will be. Unless Godworks a miracle, no such things as they are looking for can be accomplished anyway.
The mark was to be enforced upon bondmen, verse 16; but slavery is abolished, and thatcan not be fulfilled here, but it was fulfilled under papal Rome. Souls were beheaded fornot worshipping the beast. Rev. 20:4. This was all fulfilled under the Papacy, butSeventh-day Adventists themselves say no one will be killed here.
We have now proved conclusively that the two-horned beast is not the United States.This being so, then Seventh-day Adventists are wrong on the image of the beast, the markof the beast, the Third Angel's Message, and the Sunday question, and hence their wholetheory collapses.
The Image of the Beast. What Is It?
In Rev. 13:14-17; 14:9-11; 15:2; 19:20; 20:4, great prominence is given to "theimage of the beast." God's wrath is threatened against all who worship it. It must,then, be some very wicked thing. Seventh-day Adventists claim that the image will beformed by a union of church and state in our nation. That will be an image to Catholicism,the beast, they say. See "Thoughts on the Revelation," page 581. Their greatmission is to warn men of this coming image. Sunday-keeping, the Pope's Sabbath, is to bethe chief feature of this image. After thorough investigation, I am satisfied that thereis no truth in this claim.
1. If a union of church and state constitutes an image to the beast, then this imagehas been formed ages ago, and by different nations, wherever there has been a union ofchurch and state as in England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Norwayand Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Abyssinia, Puritan New England, etc. But this would overthrowthe Seventh-day Adventist theory that the image has never yet been formed.
2. They say that the Papacy is the beast to whom the image is formed. Elder Smith thusdefines the Papacy: "The Papacy, then, was a church clothed with civil power."Thoughts on Revelations, page 585. Is this definition correct? No; it is utterly false, asevery scholar knows. It was made to fit a theory as false as the definition. Look at anydictionary. "Papacy: 1. The office and dignity of the Pope... 2. The Popes takencollectively." Web. The Papacy existed long before it was clothed with civil power.It has no civil power now, yet it is the Papacy still. So, then, an image to the Papacydoes not necessarily include civil power or a union of church and state at all. On thisfalse assumption is built the Advent theory of the image.
3. What is the Papacy? See Webster above. It is that ecclesiastical system of worshipof which the Pope is head. Its distinguishing marks are these: 1. Popes. 2. Cardinals. 3.Monks. 4. Nuns. 5. Celibacy. 6. The mass. 7. Worship of the virgin. 8. Worship of saints.9. Use of images. 10. Sign of the cross. 11. The confessional. 12. Use of incense. 13.Holy water. 14. Claim of infallibility. 15. A gorgeous worship, and the like. This is thePapacy, as known to everybody the world over. Now unite our Protestant churches with ourstate, pass a law and fine Sabbath-keepers, and how many of the above distinguishingfeatures of the Papacy would you have? Not ONE. In order to have an IMAGE to the Papacy,you must have at least the main features of it, as above. But even Adventists do notexpect to see any of the above items in their Sunday law. Their idea of an image to thebeast is a senseless, unscriptural affair from the first to last.
4. A stringent national Sunday law, such as Adventists expect, would by no meansconstitute an image to the Papacy; because Catholics never had nor taught such a Sundayinstitution as that would be. Their Sunday is, and always has been, a loose holiday, a dayfor games, sports, beer gardens, saloons, dancing, voting, and even work, with a littlechurch service and Mass in the morning. Look at the Sunday in any Catholic country orcommunity. Such a strict Sunday as Adventists expect would be no more like that than asheep is like an ox; hence, not an image to it. The Adventists themselves have shown thatthe doctrine of a strict Sunday did not originate with the Catholics, but with thePresbyterians and Puritans in the sixteenth century. History of the Sabbath, Chapter XXV.So, then, their Sunday law would constitute an image to the church of Scotland instead ofthe church of Rome! So their theory breaks down on all sides.
5. All this on the supposition that the Papacy is the leopard beast to which the imageis to be made. But we have proved that the leopard beast is not the Papacy, but the empireof Rome under the ten kingdoms after their adoption of Christianity. But their conversionwas only nominal. They brought with them very largely their pagan doctrines, customs,religious rites, images, gods, shrines, temples, and pomp of worship. This became themodel after which the Papacy was gradually but finally formed. The Papacy in its full andfinal development was an image of this half heathen, half Christian, worldly kingdom.
The Deadly Wound, and How it Was Healed
The utter fallacy of the Seventh-day Adventist theory of these beasts is shown by thefact that they locate the deadly wound of Rev. 13:3 in 1798, at the END of the forty-twomonths of verse 5, after nearly all the work of the beast is done. But in the prophecy itis distinctly located in the very BEGINNING of the work of the leopard beast. Read Rev.13:1-10, and see where the wound was made, verse 3. The worship of the beast, his power,his blasphemies, his persecutions of the saints, his forty-two months, his 1260 yearsreign, the subjection of all the earth to him - all these come AFTER the wound is healed,not before. On the overthrow of paganism, the breaking up of the empire by the northernbarbarians, and the final extinction was about to be entirely extinguished. But right hereChristianity conquered those barbarians, and brought them under the rising influence ofthe Papacy. New life was infused into the old carcass, the empire was revived, the woundwas healed. See Barnes, Clark, Scott, etc.
The Mark of the Beast: What Is It?
1. Seventh-day Adventists assert in the most positive manner that the Pope changed theSabbath to Sunday. "The Pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to thefirst day." Mrs. White, Early Writings, page 55.
2. Then they affirm that "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." TheMarvel of Nations, by U. Smith, page 183. "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child ofthe Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.They thunder this into the ears of the people, and threaten them with God's wrath if theykeep Sunday, till they frighten ignorant souls to give it up.
3. This change in the Sabbath, they say, was made by the Popes at the Council ofLaodicea, A.D. 364. Replies to Elder Canright, page 151. This was over 1500 years ago.
4. All who keep Sunday, they assert, worship the beast and receive his mark."Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey thisinstitution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of thebeast.' .... Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day arecertainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent ReviewExtra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850. This language is too plain to be mistaken. All whokeep Sunday have the mark of the beast.
5. But, strange to tell, they now all deny that any one has ever had the mark of thebeast. "We have never so held," says Smith, Marvel of Nations, page 184. Allright, though this is a square denial of what they once taught, as above. It is a commonthing for them to change their positions and then deny it. We proceed:
6. The United States will soon pass a strict Sunday law and unite church and state;then all who will keep Sunday will have the mark. Marvel of Nations, page 185.
Answer.
Does the Bible say that the mark of the beast is keeping Sunday? No, indeed. That isonly another one of their assumptions. To establish this, they have to make a long,roundabout set of arguments, built upon inferences, none of which are sound. Their theoryis false, because:
1. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross. [Col. 2:16] Hence, it was not changedby the Pope.
2. Sunday is the Lord's day of Rev. 1:18. See Chapter X of this book.
3. The Pope never changed the Sabbath. This point I have proved beyond all question inChapter XI. This fact alone upsets their whole argument on the mark of the beast.
4. The Papacy is not the beast to whom the image is made, as they assume. Here againthere whole story is demolished.
5. Merely keeping Sunday would not be an image to the Papacy any way, as I have shown.
6. The two-horned beast is not the United States at all, but is the Papacy, as I haveclearly proved.
7. The image to the beast was made ages ago by the Papacy. So every one of theirarguments for the mark of the beast fails.
The Absurdities of Their Position.
1. Sunday-keeping has been the mark of the beast for 1500 years. During all this timemillions have kept Sunday on the sole authority of the Roman church, and yet no one hadthe mark!
2. The keeping of Sunday has been time and again and in many countries enforced by lawand severe penalties, just as they say it will be in the future here, and yet none ofthose who have kept it as thus enforced have had the mark of the beast!
3. Church and state have been united in various countries, and have enforced thisinstitution of the Papacy, as they call it, and yet it was not enforcing the mark of thebeast!
4. For over 1500 years, taking their own dates, all the pious of the earth, themartyrs, the reformers, the Luthers, Wesleys and Judson, have observed Sunday and enjoyedthe blessing of God, but now, all at once, the whole world, Christians and all, are to bedamned and drink the wrath of God for doing just what all holy men have done for ages! OfSunday-keeping in the future, Mrs. White says: "That must be a terrible sin whichcalls down the wrath of God unmingled with mercy." Great Controversy, page 282. Thisterrible sin is just what all the church of Christ has practiced for ages, and yet havehad God's blessing! How absurd.
5. It is attempted to dodge this point by saying that those of other ages did not havethe light on the Sabbath. I have shown the falsity of that on other pages. Luther, Bunyan,Baxter, Milton, all had the "light" on the Sabbath question, and rejected it andwrote against it. Then I can do it, too, and not have the mark of the beast, if they didnot.
6. If it is worshipping the beast to rest from physical labor on Sunday after one knowsthat Sunday is the Pope's Sabbath, then many Seventh-day Adventists are worshippers of thebeast. Why? Because they often rest on Sunday. Book agents, colporters, teachers,drummers, persons visiting relatives, ministers in new places, etc., all frequently reston Sunday, and even go to church all day! Are they worshippers of the beast? Why not? Doyou say they only do it for convenience or from policy? Just so they can rest on Sundayfor the same reason when the law shall require it, and not worship the beast any more thanAdventists do now.
7. Deny it as they may, the Seventh-day Adventist teachings do make all Sunday-keepers,both now and in past ages, worshippers of the beast, having the mark of the beast. Here isproof in their own words:
1. The Pope changed the Sabbath. Sunday is only the Popes day. See above.
2. "The mark of the beast is the change the beast made in the law of God," inthe Sabbath. Marvel of Nations, page 175. Then the mark of the beast existed as soon asthe change was made, which they locate 1500 years ago. Is not this conclusion inevitable?If the mark of the beast is the change of the Sabbath which was made by the Papacy in thefourth century, then that mark has existed ever since. There is no escape from thisconclusion.
3. All who have kept the law since that date, as changed by the beast, have beenkeeping the law of the beast, not the law of God; have been worshippers of the beast, notworshippers of God. Here is their own argument for it: Referring to the prophecy that thePapacy should "change times and laws," Dan. 7:25, which they claim the Popefulfilled A.D. 364, by changing the Sabbath to Sunday, Elder Smith says: "When thisis done [which is 1500 years ago], what do the people of the world have? They have twolaws demanding obedience" - the law of God and the law of the Pope. If they keep thelaw of God, as given by Him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed bythe Papacy, they worship that power.... For instance, if God says that the seventh day isthe Sabbath, on which we must rest, but the Pope says that the first day is the Sabbath,and that we should keep this day, and not the seventh, THEN WHOEVER observes that preceptas originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshipper of God; and he whokeeps it as changed is THEREBY MARKED as a follower of the power that made the change....>From this conclusion no candid mind can dissent." Marvel of Nations, pages 174and 175.
Then, for the past fifteen hundred years, all who have kept Sunday have been"marked" as followers of the beast and have worshipped him! From their ownargument, does not this inevitably follow? Of course, it does. When they try to deny andevade this abominable conclusion, they simply contradict and stultify themselves. Eithertheir argument is a fallacy, or else this conclusion must follow. Look at this hideousMoloch which they have set up to frighten the ignorant. The Pope in the fourth centurychanged the law of God by changing the Sabbath to Sunday. This change is the mark of thebeast; whoever after that keeps the law as thus changed, is keeping not the law of God,but the Pope's law; is worshipping, not God, but the Pope. But all Christians for fifteenhundred years have kept Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast, and, as Smithsays, were "thereby marked as followers of the power that made the change." Fromthis conclusion there is no escape. And so all Sunday-keepers have had the mark of thebeast, and have it now.
But they say that they do not teach that anyone as yet has had the mark of the beast.This shows the absurdity of their argument. Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, yetSunday-keepers have not got the mark of the beast! For instance: I have a hundredcounterfeit bills; I pay them out to fifty men in Otsego, and they take and keep them, yetnot a man of them has a counterfeit bill! Isn't that clear - as mud? But they don't knowthat they are counterfeit bills, and so are not guilty for having them. But have they notgot counterfeit bills for all that? Certainly. So, if Sunday-keeping is the mark of thebeast, then every man that keeps Sunday has the mark of the beast, whether he knows it ornot. God may not hold them guilty for it, but they have it just the same. Now, as soon asthese fifty men are informed that their bills are counterfeit, are they not guilty if theyuse them after that? Yes. So, as soon as a man is informed that Sunday is the mark of thebeast, if he keeps it after that has he not the mark of the beast as truly as ever he canhave it? And if he still keeps Sunday voluntarily is he not just as guilty before God asthough the law compelled him to keep it? Yes, and more so; because now he has no excuse,while then he could plead that he was compelled to do it. So, then, it needs no Sunday lawto give men the mark of the beast. All Sunday-keepers have it already, and as soon as theyare informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, then they are guilty as worshipers ofthe beast. But Seventh-day Adventists have already informed thousands upon this point.Then if they have not the mark of the beast, why not? Surely I have been enlightened onit, and yet I keep Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast. Have I the mark ofthe beast? Let them answer if they dare. Remember that Luther, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan andMiller were all informed on the Sabbath question, and still wrote against it and keptSunday. Reader, this Advent mark of the beast is an absurdity and only a scare-crow. Don'tbe frightened.
Even if the Pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday, that would not make Sunday HIS mark.The mark of any person was that which he used to mark things as belonging to him. In Bibletimes a master would put his mark on the right hand or forehead of his slaves. Heathengods had their worshipers marked so. This custom is referred to and used here as anillustration. So the worshipers of the beast would be required to do something which wouldmark or distinguish them as his followers. But keeping Sunday does not distinguish aCatholic from members of other churches, for all churches keep Sunday - the Greek,Armenian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, etc. The Pope has never used Sunday todistinguish his followers from others, nor as proof of his authority as head of thechurch. He does point to the keys of St. Peter and his regular apostolic succession fromhim as proof of his authority. Says Dowling: "The Popes assert their divine right ofsupremacy in consequence of their claiming to be the successors of the ApostlePeter." History of Romanism, page 44. On this, not on Sunday-keeping, they base theirclaim of power. Some obscure catechism is quoted, claiming authority for the church to"command feasts and holy days," because that church has made Sunday holy. Thisfalls infinitely short of making Sunday the proof of all their authority, the one"mark" of that church.
4. It is absurd to say that resting on Sunday is such a fearful crime as Adventistsaffirm. Hear Elder Smith: "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast.""The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense thatcan be committed against God." Marvel of Nations, pages 170, 183. So keeping Sundayis more wicked than lying, stealing, or even murder or idolatry! Such a statement ismonstrous. In the mind of any candid, thinking man, it must break down under the weight ofits own absurdity.
What, Then, is the Mark of the Beast? (See appendix D)
Elder Smith himself stated this as clearly as need be: "It will evidently be someact or acts by which men will be required to acknowledge the authority of that image andyield obedience to its mandates." "So the mark of the beast, or of the Papacy,must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged."Marvel of Nations, pages 169, 172. Exactly; any act or acts by which men show theirreverence for the beast or his image, any form of worship by which they acknowledge hisauthority, that would be worshipping the beast and his image and receiving his mark. Dr.Clarke says: "The Latin [Catholic] worship is the universal badge of distinction ofthe Latin church from all other churches on the face of the earth, and is, therefore, theonly infallible MARK by which a genuine papist can be distinguished from the rest ofmankind." On Rev. 13:16. This is the position taken by Protestants generally, and Ibelieve it to be correct. A conformity to the system of worship set up by the Papacy, thatgreat anti-Christian power, the image to the beast, would be worshipping the beast and hisimage and receiving his mark. To worship the beast is a great crime; but is it a crime todevote a day to God, even though the Bible has not required it? Surely not, for Paul says:"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." Romans 14:6. Aboutdoing this he says: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Verse 5.So we are at liberty to regard Sunday unto the Lord, if we so choose. Hence, it cannot bea sin as Adventists claim, and so cannot be the mark of the beast.
The Three Messages, Rev. 14:6-12
The one great claim of Seventh-day Adventists is that they are preaching the threemessages of Rev. 14:6-12. This is their constant theme. So the Mormons claim that JoeSmith preached this message. But there is not a particle of foundation for the claim ineither case. Read the first message, verses 6,7. An angel is seen preaching the gospel toevery nation, saying: "Fear God, and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgmentis come; and worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains ofwaters." This was fulfilled by the apostles and early Christians, as they preachedthe gospel to all nations. Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach thegospel to every creature." Mark 16:15. The angel in Rev. 14:6,7, is seen preachingthe gospel to every nation, as Jesus commanded. Compare Paul's sermon to the idolatrousheathen at Lystra, Acts 14:15, with the words of the first message, Rev. 14:7, and theywill be seen to be almost identical. Said Paul, We "preach unto you that ye shouldturn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea,and all things that are therein." So Rev. 14:7 says "Worship him that madeheaven and earth, and the sea." This, then, was a message to idolaters, announcing tothem the living God who made all things, but of whom they had been ignorant. This isexactly what the early church preached to the heathen nations till idolatry wasoverthrown.
Paul says the gospel "was preached to every creature which is under heaven,"Col. 1:23. This was before he died, and this exactly fulfilled Rev. 14:6,7. But the Adventwork of 1844 was a small, local affair, limited to a few states; much less was it preachedto all nations.
Adventists claim that Wm. Miller preached this message in 1840-4. He did no such thing.The burden of preaching was that the end of the world would come in 1843 and then in 1844.But he preached what failed both times, as we know. Does God send men to make suchblunders as that? Miller did not preach the hour of judgment come. That was anafterthought, an interpretation put upon his work which was not thought of at the time.
It is claimed that the apostles could not have preached this message, as the judgmentdid not come in their day. Let us see. Jesus preached thus: "Now is the judgment ofthis world." John 12:31. Jesus said, "NOW is the judgment." Who willcontradict him and say it wasn't? Peter said: "For the time IS COME that judgmentmust begin at the house of God." 1Pet. 4:17. Then the judgment did begin there. Hereare two direct testimonies, and that is enough. So in exact harmony with these, the FirstAngel announces, "The hour of his judgment is come." Rev. 14:7. If anyone wantsto see the truth, this is clear enough; if they don't want to, there is no use arguingwith them further.
Second Message, Verse 8
"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, thatgreat city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of herfornication." What is Babylon, that great city? It is fully described in Rev. 17 and18, and is regarded by all Protestants as the Roman church. Adventists themselves agreewith this, though endeavoring to make Babylon also include the Protestant churches. Evenwith their view Babylon, "the great," must refer primarily to Rome, and onlyinclude other fallen churches as a secondary idea, as her daughters. Seventh-dayAdventists claim that this message was preached by the Millerites in 1844. When thechurches refused to believe Miller that the end of the world would come in 1844, and thathe could tell the very day, then and for this unbelief all these churches were rejected ofGod and fell. Mrs. White says: "Satan has taken full possession of the church as abody....Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations are an abomination in thesight of God." Early Writings, page 135. What awful thing had they done to fall so?Why, Miller said the world would end in 1844, and they said it wouldn't. He was wrong andthey were right, but God rejected them and blessed the Millerites! This is a fairillustration of the egotism and inconsistency of the Adventists. Did they preach what Rev.14:8 says? No! They said Babylon was fallen BECAUSE she rejected Millerism, but themessage gives a far different reason. Babylon fell "because she made all nationsdrink of the wine of her fornication." The Bible gives one reason, Adventists giveanother. Did the Protestant churches in America in the short space of about five years,during Miller's preaching, and by simply rejecting his time-theory - did they thus makeall nations drunk? The idea is absurd. This message must have a far deeper and broadermeaning than this. So they never preached this message. Just a few of the churches in theeastern states heard and rejected Millerism; for all this the tens of millions of churchmembers throughout the whole world, who never even so much as heard of Miller, wererejected of God! What an unreasonable position. Again, Babylon must at least include Rome.Did the Catholic church fall in 1844? No, for she fell ages ago, as every Protestantknows. So, then, the fall of Babylon does not mean what Adventists say, nor did theypreach what the message says.
A thousand times more probable is the application of this message to the work of Lutherand the Reformation. Till the time of Luther the Papal church was supposed to be the truechurch, and as such it ruled over the kings of earth and the consciences of men. Lutherstartled the world with the bold proclamation that the Roman church was the "Motherof harlots," "Babylon the great," of Rev. 17:1-6, and that she was fallen,as stated in Rev. 14:8; 18:1- 4. October 6, 1520, he published his famous book on the"Babylonish Captivity of the Church."
I will quote from D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, Vol. II: "Luther hadprepared a mine, the explosion of which shook the edifice of Rome to its lowestfoundation. This was the publication of his famous book on the 'Babylonish Captivity ofthe Church,' which appeared on the 6th of October, 1520." Page 130. In it he said:"I know that the Papacy is none other than the kingdom of Babylon ." Page 131."Christians are God's true people, led captive to Babylon." Page 133. "Allthe evils that afflicted Christendom, he sincerely ascribed to Rome." Page 138. SaysLuther: "It is true that I have attacked the court of Rome; but neither you nor anyman on earth can deny that it is more corrupt than Sodom." Page 139. "ThisBabylon, which is confusion itself." "Rome for many years past has inundated theworld with all that could destroy both body and soul. The church of Rome, once theforemost in sanctity, is become the most licentious den of robbers, the most shameless ofall brothels, the kingdom of sin, of death, and of hell." Page 140.
Here was a proclamation of the fall of Babylon, which was worthy of the name. Truly,Rome had made all nations drunk with her wine. She had ruled over all nations; had becomerich; had lived in splendor; had killed the saints; had become the habitation of everyevil spirit. All this is exactly portrayed in Rev. 17:1-6, where "Babylon thegreat," of Chapter 14:8. is more fully described. Then in Rev. 18:1-4 theannouncement of the fall of Babylon, as noticed in Chapter 14:8, is more fully explained,but it is the same message. This fits Luther's work exactly.
Luther's message was a mighty cry, which enlightened the earth, announced the fearfulcorruptions of Rome, and called out of her millions of people, and gave to the world thatmighty power, Protestantism. In all the history of the world such a mighty religious movehad never before been seen. This was worthy of a notice in prophecy.
Consider this fact: While Adventists find hundreds of prophecies, whole chapters ofthem, applying to their little work, they find none foretelling the great religiousmovement of the Reformation which revolutionized the world! It illustrates how theyinterpret everything to fit themselves. No; the second message of Rev. 14:8, the fall ofBabylon, applies to the Catholic church, not to Protestants, and was given three hundredand fifty years ago by Luther, not by the Millerites in 1844.
The Third Message, Rev. 14:9-12
This warning against the worship of the beast and his image, and his mark, has beengiven by all the Protestant churches for the last three hundred years. Look at themultitude of books against popery and the corruptions of Catholicism. From press andpulpit has been thundered one continual warning against apostate Rome. Never was aprophecy more plainly fulfilled than this.
Seventh-day Adventists say that they are giving this message. Never was a claim moreabsurd.
1. They are mistaken entirely as to what the beast, image, and mark are, as I haveshown.
2. According to their own showing, they have been preaching for seventy years against athing which does not exist - the image, which they say is yet to be made!
3. That part of the message about the torment of the wicked, their smoke going up forever and ever, etc., they never preach; for it is just what they don't believe.
4. Their egotistical claim that they are the only ones who "keep the commandmentsof God," is shown to be false in Chapter XX.
5. There are six angels mentioned in Rev. 14. If the first three represent messages ofwarning, then the other three do also; and, hence, there are yet three messages more tocome after the Third Angels message! What do Adventists have to say about these? Nothing.
These few brief points are sufficient to show that their application of the threemessages is entirely wrong.
Is the Sabbath God's Seal?
Seventh-day Adventists claim that "the seal of God is his Holy Sabbath."Thoughts on Revelation, page 452. They are not sent to "seal" the 144,000 ofRev. 7:1-8 ready for translation. Not a soul living on earth when Jesus comes will besaved, unless he is thus sealed by keeping that day. Early Writings, page 11.
1. Does the Bible say that the Sabbath is the seal of God? No; this is anotherAdventist assumption which they claim to prove by a long, round-about, far-fetched set ofinferences. It takes one of their ablest speakers an hour to make it appear even plausiblewhen he has no opposition. Even then few can see through it.
2. The word "seal," as a noun and a verb, is used sixty-five times in theBible, but not once is it said to be the Sabbath.
3. They argue that SIGN and SEAL are synonymous terms, meaning the same thing; and asthe Sabbath is called a sign (Ex. 31:17), it is therefore a seal. To this I object,because (1) SEAL is never defined by the word SIGN, nor SIGN by the word SEAL; nor is oneterm ever given as the synonym for the other. I have carefully examined fourteen differentdictionaries, lexicons and cyclopedias, and find no exception to this statement. (2) Thisoriginal term for seal (Hebrew, 'chotham'; Greek, 'sphragis') is never rendered sign. (3)The original word for sign (Hebrew, 'oth'; Greek, 'semeion') is never rendered seal. Hencethey are not synonymous terms.
4. Rom. 4:11 is used to prove that a sign is a seal; but it does not prove it. Anythingmay be put to two entirely different uses, as I may use my cane for a staff or for apointer, but is therefore a staff and a pointer the same? No. So in Rom. 4:11,circumcision was used as a sign and also as a seal; but this does not prove that a sign isa seal. So the Sabbath is a sign. Ex. 31:17 Possibly God might also use it as a seal, butdoes he? Where is the proof? Nowhere.
5. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel. Ex. 31:17. So wascircumcision. Rom. 4:11. But neither is a sign to Christians.
6. The Sabbath was abolished at the cross. Col. 2:16. Hence it cannot be God's sealnow.
7. If the Sabbath is God's seal with which he seals his people for translation, thenevery one who has the Sabbath is sealed and ready for translation. When God puts his sealupon a man, that must settle it that he is God's. So in Rev. 7:2-4, where the angel sealeda man with the seal of God, did he not thereby become one of the 144,000 who were"without fault?" Rev. 14:1-5. Yes. Then, if the Sabbath is the seal, all whokeep it are sealed and ready for Heaven. But (1) the old Pharisees all kept the Sabbathstrictly; (2) millions of Jews keep it now; (3) all Seventh-day Baptists keep it; (4) theMarion party, who bitterly oppose Seventh-day Adventists, all keep it; (5) manySeventh-day Adventists keep it who have been expelled from their churches for their sins.Are all these sealed and ready for salvation? No. Then the Sabbath as a seal, as the proofof God's favor, as a test of character and fitness for Heaven, fails entirely. Hence, itcannot be God's seal.
What then, is God's seal? It is plainly stated to be the Holy Spirit. Thus: "Whohath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." IICor, 1:22."In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit ofpromise." Eph. 1:13. "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye aresealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. These texts are plain enough as towhat the seal of the Lord is. It is the Holy Spirit. Strange that men will set aside theseplain texts, and try by long, uncertain arguments to make out that the old Jewish Sabbathis the seal, when the Bible never says a word about it.
Adventists argue that the Sabbath is the seal to the decalogue. They say there isnothing else in the Ten Commandments to tell who gave that law. The assertion is utterlyfalse. The very first words of the decalogue tell who gave it: "I am the Lord thyGod, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalthave no other gods before me." Ex. 20:2,3. This tells as plainly as possible who gavethat law, and cuts up by the roots the Adventist argument on the seal. Now look at their"Law of God" chart. These words as God put them are left off. If left on theywould clearly contradict the Advent argument.
Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their view of the sanctuary. It isvital with them. If they are wrong on this, their whole theory breaks down. The readershould, therefore, study this subject carefully. They dwell upon it constantly, and affirmthat they are the only ones in all Christendom who have the light on the subject. I willdevote only a few pages to it, just enough to show the fallacy of their system.
They based their time of 1844 upon Dan. 8:14. "Unto two thousand and three hundreddays, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The sanctuary was the earth. It was tobe cleansed by fire at the second advent. The 2300 days ended in 1844. Hence, Christ mustcome that year. They proved it all by the Bible; so there could be no mistake, they said.But Christ didn't come. Now what? Fanaticism dies hard, positive men don't like to yield.So they now find that the sanctuary does not mean the earth at all, as they had said, buta real building in heaven, just like the tabernacle which Moses built. That was a tentwith two rooms, the Holy place, containing the table, a candlestick, and golden altar; theMost Holy, containing the ark, in which were the tables of stone, and over which was themercy seat and cherubim. See Heb. 9:17. The priests ministered in the first place everyday in the year, but only the high priest went into the Most Holy, and he only on the lastday of the year. Lev. 16. On that day he cleansed the sanctuary of the sins confessedthere during the year. All this was a type of just such a building in heaven, where Christministers. Heb. 8:1-5; 9:1-9,24. In 1844 he left the first place and entered the Most Holyto cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, which, really, is the judgment. This explains theirdisappointment. Jesus went into the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to begin thejudgment in 1844, instead of coming to earth, as they first expected and preached! Toprove all this they make long, inferential arguments, which are open to objections fromall sides.
1. Do the Adventists KNOW that they are right about this question? No.
2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say it is, it is strange thatnobody ever found it out before.
3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, and knowing all theirarguments, I feel sure they are mistaken about it.
1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message to earth upon which the destinyof the church and the world depended. The very first thing they did was to get the wrongyear, '43 instead of '44. Then, when they got that fixed up, instead of announcing thereal event to take place, the change in Christ's work in the sanctuary in heaven, theysaid he was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the world, when nothing of the kindwas to occur!
2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found out the real mistake they hadmade. Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Litch, etc., everaccepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of the great mass of 1844Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary, and these were men of no note inMiller's work.
3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-day Adventist's move, rejecting the idea of thesanctuary, the Sabbath, and the third angel's message. What a hopeless tangle that Adventwork was! No wonder people rejected it. What if Moses had opposed Joshua, and John theBaptist had opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a work, got it wrong, and then opposedthose who did finally get it right!
4. Instead of receiving the "light" of the sanctuary question from Mrs.White's vision, or from heaven, they got it from O.R.L. Crosier. But he soon gave it allup as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-day Adventists for many years. It looks badlyfor a theory when its very authors renounce it.
5. Seventh-day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary theory to prove that the doorof mercy was shut in 1844, a theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at that time.Here is my proof on this point: Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1 1887. Elder D.M. Canright:"I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea ofthe sanctuary in an article in an extra double number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. Theobject of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theorywhich I and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844to 1848. Yes, I KNOW that Ellen G. Harmon - now Mrs. White - held the shut door theory atthat time." Truly yours, O.R.L. Crosier
Now listen to Mrs. White: Topsham, Me., April 21, 1847. "...The Lord showed me invision more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing ofthe sanctuary, etc., and that it was his will that Bro. C. should write out the view whichhe gave us in the Day Star (extra), Feb 7, 1846. I fell fully authorized by the Lord torecommend that extra to every saint...." E.G. White, "A Word to the LittleFlock," pages 11,12.
Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary theory. Before me lies "ThePresent Truth," Vol. I, No. 6, December, 1849, by James White. "The Shut DoorExplained," is the leading article, in which it is argued from the type Lev. 16:17,that when the high priest entered the Most Holy there could be no more pardon for sin."On this day of atonement he is a high priest for THOSE ONLY whose names areinscribed on the bread-plate of judgment," page 44. No more salvation for sinners, iswhat their sanctuary theory was then used to prove. The whole volume is full of this idea.
6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; in the type no sin could beconfessed and conveyed into the sanctuary after the high priest entered the Most Holy.Lev. 4:1-7; 16:17,23,24. So if this was a type of the entrance of Christ into the MostHoly in heaven in 1844, then truly the door of mercy did close there, and all sinnerssince are lost.
7. No work whatever was to be done on the day of atonement, or day when the sanctuarywas cleansed. Lev. 23:27-32. The law was very strict. If the Advent argument on thesanctuary is correct and the day of atonement began in 1844, then they ought not to haveworked a day since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held that it was a sin to work; buttime starved them out, and they had to go at it again.
8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that the door of mercy was entirelyshut against sinners in 1844, they next taught that ONLY THOSE could be saved who KNEW ofthe change Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven in 1844. Thus Elder Smith, in"Objections to the Visions Answered," pages 24- 26, says: "A knowledge ofChrist's position and work is necessary to the enjoyment of the benefits of hismediation.... A general idea of his work was then (previous to 1844) sufficient to enablemen to approach unto God by him.... But when he changed his position (in 1844) to the MostHoly place... that knowledge of his work which had up to that point been sufficient, wasno longer sufficient.... Who can find salvation now? Those who go to the Saviour where heis and view him by faith in the Most Holy place.... This is the door now open forsalvation. But no man can understand this change without definite knowledge of the subjectof the sanctuary and the relation of type and anti-type. Now they may seek the Saviour asthey have before sought him, with no other ideas of his position and ministry than thosewhich they entertained while he was in the first apartment; but will it avail them? Theycannot find him there. That door is shut!" So Mrs. White: "They have noknowledge of the move made in Heaven, or the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot bebenefited by the intercession of Jesus there. ... They offer up their useless prayers tothe apartment which Jesus has left." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 171,172. Whatabominable doctrine! No one can be saved unless they know of the change which Christ madein Heaven in 1844. But no one except Seventh-day Adventists has the slightest idea of thatchange. Reader, think of this.
9. But now they have abandoned this view of the sanctuary and hold that all whohonestly seek God may be saved without any of this "light" on the sanctuary.Thus they have already held four different positions upon the sanctuary question: 1. Itwas the earth. 2. The door of mercy was shut to all sinners in 1844. 3. It was open onlyto those who learned about Christ's change in 1844. 4. It is now open to all. What willthey hold next?
After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the sanctuary, I feel sure thatthey are in a great error on that point.
1. God's throne was always in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary, between thecherubim, over the ark, never once in the Holy place. For proof on this point see Lev.16:2; Num. 7:89; ISam. 4:4; IIKings 19:15. Smith argues that God's throne was sometimes inthe Holy place and refers to Ex. 33:9. But here the Lord appeared OUTSIDE the tabernacle,and not in the Holy place at all. So his text fails him.
2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred years ago, he went directly to theright hand of God and sat down on his throne. Heb. 8:1. Hence, he must have entered theMost Holy then, instead of on 1844.
3. "Within the vail" is into the Most Holy place. "And thou shalt hangup the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark ofthe testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the Holy place and the MostHoly." Ex. 26:33. Also see Lev. 16:2,12,13.
None can fail to see that "within the vail" is in the Most Holy place wherethe ark was. This is just where Jesus went eighteen hundred years ago. Proof: "WhichHOPE we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth intothat within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, EVEN Jesus made a highpriest for ever." Heb. 6:19,20. As the high priest went "within the vail,"so Jesus, our high priest, went "within the vail," into the Most Holy place, tothe right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Nothing could be more plainly stated.This upsets the whole Advent theory of 1844. For further proof see Ex. 27:21; 30:6;40:22-26; Lev. 4:6,17; 16:15; 24:3; Num. 18:7; Matt. 27:51.
4. "Before the throne," Rev. 8:3. Elder Smith asserts that "the throneof God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary," because it is said that theseven lamps and the golden altar were "before the throne," Rev. 4:5; 8;3. It isas desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The same argument would prove that theark and God's throne were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, which weknow to be false. As there was only a vail which divided the Holy from the Most Holy,where God's throne was, things in the Holy place were said to be "before theLord," as they were so near to the throne, which was just behind the curtain. Proof:Ex. 27:20,21; 30:6-8; 40:23-25; Lev. 4:6,15-18. Even outside of the tabernacle entirely,where the beasts were killed, was "before the Lord," as Lev. 4:15 shows. Abrahamwalked "before the Lord," Gen. 24:40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was inheaven.
5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where the ark and cherubim andthrone were in the Holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the antitype theyhave the throne of God in the Holy place, not on some special occasion, but all the timefor 1800 years, just contrary to the type!
6. Adventists always assume and say that "the temple of God is the Most Holyplace." Sanctuary, page 234, by U. Smith. But this is false. The Most Holy place, orthe oracle, was a ROOM IN THE TEMPLE, but it was not the temple itself. In fact theScriptures carefully distinguished between the temple and the oracle or Most Holy. SeeIKings 6:5,16,17,19,23; 7:50. The temple was the house, the whole building. IKings 7:50;IIKings 11:13; ISam. 3:3; Matt. 21:12; Luke 1:9; Rev. 11:19.
7. When was the temple in heaven opened, Rev. 11:19? Adventists use this text to provethat the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary was not opened till 1844. But it failsthem: 1) Because, as we have proved above, the temple is not the Most Holy place, but thewhole building. 2) Because the heavenly temple was opened when Christ began his ministrythere, 1800 years ago. Heb. 8:1,2; 9:8-12. 3) Because verse 19 of Rev. 11 properly belongswith Rev. 12, and begins that new line of prophecy, instead of closing the line in Chapter11. The Syriac thus divides it. Clarke, Barnes, Scott, and every commentator I haveconsulted, connects this verse with Chapter 12 as the introduction. Says Scott: "V.19 - This verse introduces a new subject, and should have been placed at the beginning ofthe next chapter." Certainly; for when was the temple in heaven opened? When Jesuswent there to begin his ministry, of course. Heb. 9:8-12. Thus fails the main pillar ofthe Adventists sanctuary theory.
Thus far I have argued on their own grounds that there is a real building up in heaven,just like the sanctuary on earth. But that whole thing is extremely questionable.
1. As children are taught moral truths by object lessons, so God taught the Jewsspiritual truths by the object lessons of the types of worship. Hence, it does not followthat in Christian worship there must be just such material things used up in heaven.Rather the presumption is against it.
2. The whole temple service was for the Aaronic priesthood; but Christ is not a priestafter the order of Aaron, but is after that of Melchisedec, Heb. 7:11. Melchisedec had notemple nor temple service, so Christ should have none. From Adam till Moses there was notemple nor priestly service in heaven. Smith admits this. "There were no holy placeslaid open, and no priestly work was established in heaven." Sanctuary, page 238.Exactly; for that was under the Melchisedec priesthood, just as now. If no temple wasneeded there for 4000 years, none is needed there now.
3. Paul directly states that the types of the law were "NOT the very image of thethings" they represent, Heb. 10:1. But Adventists make their argument on theassumption that they were exact images of things in heaven, thus ignoring Paul'sstatement.
4. Paul says that Christ is a minister of a greater and more perfect tabernacle, Heb.9:11. Then it must differ from the earthly one.
5. Paul says it is one "not made with hands," Heb. 9:11. This shows that itis not a material building.
6. Paul says that Jesus' flesh is the vail, Heb. 10:20. This shows that the temple wasonly figurative.
7. Scarcely one of the types had an antitype just like it. Thus lambs and oxen were thetype of which Jesus was the antitype. But he was a MAN and they were BEASTS. The bodies ofthose beasts were BURNED, Heb. 13:11,12, but Christ, the antitype was not burned. Theywere slain at the door of the sanctuary, Lev. 17:3,4, but Jesus was not slain at the doorof the sanctuary. Their blood was carried into the temple and put on the altar, Lev.4:6,7, but the blood of Christ was spilt on the ground. The Levitical priests madeofferings daily, but Christ only once for all, Heb. 9:25,26,28; 10:10,12,14. Elder Smithsays: "The fact that Moses made two apartments in his likeness of the heavenly templeis a DEMONSTRATION that the latter has two apartments also." Again: "The Priestshere on earth, in both apartments, served unto the example of a like service in heaven.Now Jesus is the only priest in heaven, and he must perform this 'like service.'" Theearthly priests offered, every day, the morning and evening sacrifice, sprinkling theblood of fresh-slain victims in the outer sanctuary. So for more than eighteen hundredyears, Jesus, according to Mr. Smith, must have offered his own fresh-shed blood in theouter apartment of the heavenly sanctuary twice every day; that is more than 1,300,000times from his ascension to 1844. This is the logical result of Mr. Smith's'demonstration.' The apostle says, Heb. 7:27: "This he did once for all, when heoffered up himself. Thus the 'demonstration' flatly contradicts the scriptures." G.W.Morton. The law regulating the service of the priests and the temple was changed, Heb.7:12. Then certainly it is not carried out in heaven now. Adventists would have the wholeLevitical law of the sanctuary service transferred to heaven and carried out there! Thisis the absurdity of their system. In Heb. 7:11-28 Paul marks many points of differencebetween the types and the antitypes. The table of the Lord was in the temple in the Jewishage, Mal. 1:7, but now the Lord's table is in the church, ICor. 10:21; 11:20. The sevenlamps in the temple of heaven "are the seven spirits of God," Rev. 4:4. Thenthey are not literal lamps. So it is more than probable that none of the things mentionedas being there are literal. In one place it is said that the saints in heaven are"clothed in white robes," Rev. 7:9, but in another place this is explained to bethe righteousness of saints, Rev. 10:8.
In Rev. 8:3 it is said that the prayers of all saints are offered upon the goldenaltar. Most evidently this is not to be taken literally, but only as a reference to theJewish mode of worship. Col. 2:16,17, says that the meats, drinks, feast days, new moonsand Sabbath days were a shadow of Christ. Reasoning as the Adventists do about the earlysanctuary, Heb. 8:5, we would expect to find something in the gospel exactly like them,meats, drinks, yearly feast days, monthly holy days, etc. But where are they? In thegospel there is nothing at all just like these types.
Paul says directly that the place into which Jesus went was "heaven itself, now toappear in the presence of God for us," Heb. 9:24. The simple truth of the whole isthat the ages of types, object lessons, exact forms, set ceremonies, consecrated placesand holy vessels - all this ended at the cross, Col. 2:17. The answer of Jesus to thewoman at the well is exactly to the point. She said: "Our fathers worshipped in themountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saidunto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, noryet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the trueworshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such toworship him. God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and intruth." John 4:20-24. Under the gospel one place is no more holy than another. Withthe holy places went all the holy vessels, sacrifices, incense, tables of stone, and all.Peter states it all in a word: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritualhouse, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by JesusChrist." IPet. 2:5. To the same effect, Eph. 2:20-22; ICor. 6:19. Now we are under anew covenant; Heb. 8:6-13, an high priest of a new order, Heb. 7:11, we come to God by anew way, Heb 10:20, by new ordinances, Mark 15:15-16; ICor. 11:23-26, by a differenttemple, and a better sacrifice. Hence, there is no need of a temple in heaven just likethe old Jewish one.
The Adventists idea of the sanctuary in heaven is an absurdity. In Early Writings,pages 114,115, Mrs. White was taken to heaven and shown all about it. She saw the buildingexactly like the one on earth. In it was the candlestick, the table of show-bread, thealtar, the curtains, the ark; and "in the ark were tables of stone containing the TenCommandments." Think, now; what use for a literal candle in the immediate presence ofGod whose glory is above the light of the sun. "They need no candle, neither light ofthe sun, for the Lord God giveth them light." Rev. 22:5. And what use for a literaltable of show-bread there? Do the angels or the Lord eat the bread? Then real tables ofstone in Heaven! and the Lord sitting on the ark over them! What puerile ideas. Hear Paulveto that idea: "Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart."IICor. 3:3. Then think of the absurdity of having the Almighty God and all the "tenthousand times ten thousand" (one hundred million) angels around his throne, dwellingin a literal building with curtains, lamps, tables, walls, etc. It would need to be largerthan a whole State. Let Adventists read this: "Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not intemples made with hands." Acts 7:48.
"But does not Paul say that the Jewish temple was a shadow, figure, a pattern ofheavenly things," Heb. 8 and 9? Yes; and so he says the offerings and holy days ofthe old covenant were shadows of Christ, Col. 2:16,17. But where are our feast days, newmoons, meats, etc., under the gospel? Nowhere, in a spiritual sense. So Paul says theearthly temple was only a FIGURE of a "tabernacle not made with hands." Heb.9:9-11. How could he say more plainly that the heavenly are not literal? Did Christminister in a literal temple in heaven from Adam till the cross, four thousand years? No.Did Melchisedec have a temple? No. Gen. 14:18-20. As Christ is a priest after his order,he needs no literal temple. According to the Adventists, the Most Holy place of theheavenly sanctuary was entirely empty and unoccupied from the ascension of Jesus till1844. Even Christ did not enter it once! Finally, their whole argument on the sanctuarydepends upon proving that the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 are a part of the twenty-threehundred days of Dan. 8:14. But does the Bible say they are? No; nor can they prove it. Thevery best they can claim is to make it plausible that they are.
Seventh-day Adventists regard Mrs. White as a prophetess and her writings as inspired.They make long arguments from the Bible to prove that there should be gifts, miracles andprophets in the church. But these are the same arguments used by the Mormons, Shakers,etc., in favor of their churches. They do not touch the case. The question is not, CAN theLord inspire men and women? but, HAS he so inspired Mrs. White? The New Testamentrepeatedly warns us against accepting false prophets. "Beware of falseprophets," Matt. 7:15. "There shall arise false Christ's and falseprophets," Matt. 24:24. "Believe not every spirit...Many false prophets are goneout into the world." 1John 4:1.
In every generation many have arisen claiming to be prophets. All have found followersmore or less. All they have to do is to firmly believe in themselves and make extravagantclaims and they will soon have followers. Let us notice a few prominent ones near our owntimes.
1. Swedenborg
He was born in Stockholm, Sweden, 1688, and died in 1772. His father was a nobleman ofhigh standing. Hence Swedenborg was highly educated and moved in the highest society. Hetraveled extensively, and conversed with the most learned men of the age. The kingappointed him to a high office, which he filled with great acceptance for over thirtyyears. He rose to eminence in science and wrote seventy-seven books, covering every branchof science. He was of the purest character and devoutly religious.
Swedenborg's Rules of Life
1. Often to read and meditate on the Word of God.
2. To submit in everything to the will of Divine Providence.
3. To observe in everything a propriety of behavior, and to keep the conscience clear.
4. To discharge with fidelity the functions of my employment, and the duties of myoffice, and to render myself in all things useful to society.
Not a stain rests upon his moral character.
At the age of fifty-five he began to have visions of heaven, hell, angels, and thespiritual world. He says: "I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself,who most mercifully appeared to me, his servant, in the year 1743, when he opened my sightinto the spiritual world and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels." Exactlylike Mrs. White claims. This work he continued for thirty years, and wrote about thirtyinspired volumes. He made most remarkable predictions, which were exactly fulfilled, it isclaimed.
He founded a new religion based upon his revelations. The Bible is sacredly taught andholy living enjoined.
This church has steadily increased, till it has societies in all parts of the world andin the leading languages. They publish three weeklies, five monthly journals, and onequarterly, besides many books. He got the start of Mrs. White just one hundred years. Hisfollowers believe in him just as implicitly as hers do in her, and are very zealous inpropagating their faith. In many respects both moves are much alike. The above iscondensed from Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia.
2. Ann Lee and the Shakers
These are so well known in America that I need say but little about them. Ann Lee,their leader, was born in England, in 1736; died 1784. Like Mrs. White, "she receivedno education." She joined a society who were having remarkable religious exercises,and soon began "to have visions and make revelations," which, just like Mrs.White, she called "testimonies." "Henceforth she claimed to be directed byrevelations and visions." Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia, article "Ann Lee."She was accepted as leader and as "the second appearing of Christ." Like Mrs.White, she required a "peculiar kind of dress," "opposed war and the use ofpork." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article "Shakers." They have no intercoursewith other churches; are renowned for their purity and devotion. They number about 8,000.A careful comparison shows many points of similarity between Mrs. Lee and Mrs. White. Themain evidence upon which Adventists rely for proof of Mrs. White's inspiration is thepurity of her life and the high moral and religious tone of her writings. They say herrevelations must either be of God or Satan. If of Satan they would not teach such purityand holiness. The same reasoning will prove Mrs. Lee also a true prophetess, for sheexceeds Mrs. White in this line, so that "Shaker" has become a synonym forhonesty. Adventists, please note this point.
3. Mrs. Joanna Southcott
She was born in England in 1750, of poor parents, and was wholly uneducated. She workedas a domestic servant till over forty years of age. She joined the Methodists in 1790. In1792 she announced herself as a prophetess, and "published numerous [over sixty]pamphlets setting forth her revelations." Johnson's Encyclopedia, article"Southcott." She had trances the same as Mrs. White does, and announced thespeedy advent of Christ. See Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott." Shecarried on a lucrative trade in the sale of her books as Mrs. White does. Strange as itmay appear, many learned ministers believed in her, and thousands joined her followers,till in a few years they numbered upwards of one hundred thousand! She made manypredictions, which her followers claimed were fulfilled. "The faith of her followers,among whom were several clergymen of the established church, rose to enthusiasm."Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott."
She "regarded herself as the bride of the Lamb, and declared herself, whensixty-four years of age, pregnant with the true Messiah, the 'second Shilo,' whom shewould bear Oct. 19, 1814... Joanna dies in her self delusion Dec. 27, 1814; but herfollowers, who at one time numbered a hundred thousand, continued till 1831 to observe theJewish Sabbath." Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. "A post mortem examination showedthat she had been suffering from dropsy [edema]." Johnson's Cyclopedia. "Deathput an end to both her hopes and her fears. With her followers, however, it was otherwise;and, though for a time confounded by her decease, which they could scarcely believe to bereal, her speedy resurrection was confidently anticipated. In this persuasion many livedand died, nor is her sect yet extinct." Encyclopedia Americana, article"Southcott."
Let candid people consider these facts. This movement occurring only thirty yearsbefore Mrs. White's work, was in several respects like the present Seventh-day Adventistmove. An illiterate woman is the leader. She has visions, writes numerous pamphlets andrevelations and predicts the speedy advent of Christ. Her honesty is plainly manifested;her enthusiasm and that of her followers is great. In a short period one hundred thousandaccept her "testimonies." The present Seventh-day Adventist move is similar inmany respects as has already been seen above.
And here notice the terrible tenacity of fanaticism when once started. When Joanna diedwe would have supposed that all sane persons would have given it up; but they fix it upsome way and go right on, and there they are now. So with the followers of Mrs. White. Nomatter what blunders or failures she makes, they fix them up some way and go right on.They will do it after she is dead and gone.
4. Joseph Smith and the Mormons
This prophet and his visions and revelations are so well known that I mention thembriefly. Smith was born in 1805, and died in 1844, the year before Mrs. White began herrevelations. He came out in a great religious awakening, as Mrs. White did in the Adventmove of 1843-4. In 1823 he also began to have "visions" and"revelations" and see angels. The second advent of Christ was at hand, he said,hence the name, "Latter day saints." His mission was to introduce "the newdispensation." They are the "saints," and all the other churches are"heathen," or Gentiles. Mrs. White's followers are all saints; all otherchurches are "Babylon" and apostate.
The proof of their inspiration outstrips Mrs. White. They work many miracles, as theystrongly assert, have the gift of tongues, and can show many predictions strikinglyfulfilled. I have met them frequently, seen Smith's son, and know them well. They alsohave a new Bible, a new revelation, have started a new sect, and will have nothing to dowith others, but proselyte from all.
The Mormons began in 1831, about fifteen years before Seventh-day Adventists did; butthey number six hundred thousand, more than five times as many as Adventists. Adventistsclaim that they must be the true church because they are persecuted; but Mormons have beenpersecuted a thousand fold more. Smith and others were killed; many have been whipped,tarred and feathered, rotten- egged, stoned, mobbed, run out of town, and outlawed. Sothey must be the true church? Seventh-day Adventists have suffered no persecution. Not oneof them has ever been whipped, or stoned, or egged, or tarred and feathered, or mobbed, orkilled. Persecution! They have no idea what it is and never will though they are anxiousto pose as great martyrs.
The Visions and their Guide
Mrs. E.G. White, wife of the late Elder White, leader of the Seventh-day Adventists,claims to be divinely inspired as were the prophets of the Bible. This claim is acceptedby the whole denomination. They defend her inspiration as earnestly as they do that of theBible. Year after year, in their State and General Conferences, ironclad resolutions havebeen unanimously adopted, endorsing her revelations in the strongest manner.
Time and again I have seen these resolutions adopted by a rising vote of the wholecongregation, myself with them. "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White, a manifestation ofspiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures," is a book of 144 pages published bythem defending her inspiration.
They point to her and her visions as the sign and proof that they are the only truechurch. Rev. 12:17. Hence it can be seen that this is a vital subject with them.
In my debate with the Adventists at Healdsburg, Cal., Feb. 21-28, 1889, they affirmedthis proposition: "The visions of Mrs. E.G. White are revelations from God." Herwritings are called "Testimonies." In Testimony No. 33, just published, shemakes this claim for her writings: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth ofprophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of hisspirit." Page 189. Again: "It is hardly possible for men to offer a greaterinsult to God than to despise and reject the instrumentalities [her Testimonies] that hehas appointed to lead these." Page 208. Notice that her "Testimonies" areto LEAD God's people now. Of her inspiration Smith says: "It comes to us as a divinemessage; it is a ray of light from the throne; it is instruction by the Holy Spirit."Replies to Elder Canright, page 77.
In the Advent Review, July 2, 1889, are laid down these, "RULES: 1. We will notneglect the study of the Bible and the Testimonies." This illustrates the place theyassign her writings, viz., an appendix to the Bible. She occupies the same relation to herpeople that Mrs. Southcott did to hers, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Joe Smith to theMormons.
Among themselves they quote her as we do Paul. A text from her writings is an end ofall controversy in doctrine and discipline. It is common to hear them say that when theygive up her visions they will give up the Bible too, and they often do.
Her visions, or "testimonies," as they are called, are so inseparablyconnected with the whole Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that a person cannot consistentlyaccept the one without accepting the other. Besides, they are so constantly urged upontheir people in every possible way, that a person cannot long feel comfortable among themunless he, too accepts them. Any one who rejects or opposes them is branded as a rebelfighting against God. Thus Mrs. White herself says: "If you lessen the confidence ofGod's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God ascertainly as were Kora, Dathan and Abiram." Testimony No. 31, page 62. She claimsthat every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God -"the precious rays of light shining from the throne," page 63. Of her own wordsshe says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken." Testimonies,Vol. III, page 257. She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her arefighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit ofGod. Those...who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, butagainst God," page 260. I could quote scores of passages like these.
These inspired writings now embrace forty bound volumes. Thus they have another Bible,just the same as the Mormons have. They have to read our old Bible in the light of thisnew Bible. Any interpretation of the Bible found in these "testimonies" settlesits meaning beyond further dispute. She says: "I took the precious Bible andsurrounded it with several testimonies to the church," Vol. 2, page 605. Exactly; andby the light of these "testimonies" that old Bible must now be read. Shecontinues: "God has, through the testimonies, simplified the great truths alreadygiven." Yes, we must now take the Bible as thus simplified by her! Swedenborg, Mrs.Southcott, Ann Lee, Joseph Smith and Mrs. White have each done the same thing - had a newrevelation, written inspired books, and started a new sect with a new religion.
There is not a doctrine or a practice of the church, from the observance of the Sabbathto the washing of feet, upon which she has not written. That settles it. No furtherinvestigation can be made on any of these matters, only to gather evidence and construeeverything to sustain it. How, then, can their ministers or people be free to think andinvestigate for themselves? They can not, dare not, and do not. How often I have seen someintelligent thought extinguished with this remark: "That contradicts SisterWhite." This ends the matter. Everything she writes, whether in a private letter ornewspaper article, is inspired. Thus: "God was speaking through clay.... In theseletters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which theLord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my ownideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of lightshining from the throne." Testimony No. 31, page 63. There you have it simon pure:every word she writes is a ray of light from the throne of God. Reject that, and you arerejected of God.
Thus it will be seen that Mrs. White claims the very highest inspiration, the voice ofGod speaking directly through her. Her followers contend that she must either be a trueprophetess or else a hypocrite; but she is neither. Few are aware of what a powerfulinfluence an excited religious imagination will have over a person. Enthusiasts andfanatics are generally honest people. Mrs. White is simply a religious enthusiastself-deceived. This I shall prove by stubborn facts.
I long studied Mrs. White to determine for myself her real character till her case isclear to my own mind. Naturally religious, young in years, uneducated, sickly, she wascarried away in the Millerite excitement of 1840- 44. Her fits she accepted as the powerof God. Encouraged and sustained by her husband, this thought grew to be a reality to her.A careful study of her writings shows that each year she has become a little stronger inher claims of inspiration till now she asserts that all her utterances, even in a letter,or in a sermon, are inspired. She claims that her dreams, her impressions of mind are allthe voice of God to her. She devotes 38 pages of her Testimony No. 33 to vindicating herown high inspiration. Probably she has some way of fixing up her mistakes, contradictionsand deceptions satisfactory to herself. So now anything she can learn in any way, anyimpression of mind, any thought clear to herself, is the Spirit speaking to her. I have nodoubt that she believes it. She is more deceived than her followers, for many of themprivately doubt her inspiration while publicly defending it.
That she is not inspired is plainly shown by many facts. She has never wrought a singlemiracle. The old prophets and the apostles wrought miracles freely, to prove that God hadsent them. In all these seventy years, in all her forty volumes, not a single predictionhas she ever made that has come to pass. This is astonishing, considering that she dwellsalmost wholly in predictions. It seems as though she ought to have blundered into manythings which could afterward be construed into a fulfilled prophecy. But not one can befound. This shows how wild and utterly wrong her theories have been.
She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just asdependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having avision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are ofdivine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" arenot inspired; for -
1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it verydifferently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and writeit over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alterthem?
2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to herhusband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch outher own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?
3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writerto take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it inpopular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thusput in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their wordsinspired, too?
4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from otherauthors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly asher greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, Historyof the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, andother books.
This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven. It is not something shehas heard or read or studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the HolyGhost. Stubborn facts show that her claim is utterly false and her book a deception thesame as the Book of Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding.
The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal., investigated the matter and published manyexamples out of hundreds where she had copied her matter directly from other authorswithout anything to show it was copied. They went through several works and scores ofpages finding the same thing all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing herideas and matter from other authors and putting them off on her followers as a revelationfrom God!
5. Passages Suppressed. Several important passages in the first edition of her visionshave been suppressed in all later ones as they contradict what Adventists now believe. Forthirty years they have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have denied it, madelight of it; and finally the pressure was so hard that in 1882, they republished her firstvisions, claiming to give them all and word for word. They say: "No changes from theoriginal work have been made." Preface to Early Writings, page 4. They also say thework was printed "under the authors own eye and with her full approval." Page 4.They denounce it as a wicked slander to say that anything has been suppressed.
But I have before me the original work entitled, "A Word to the LittleFlock," published by Jas. White, 1847; also "The Present Truth," August,1849, containing her original visions. Comparing the present edition with the original, Ifind seven different places where from FIVE to THIRTY lines in a place have been cut rightout with no sign of omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to herinspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. It teaches what they now deny,viz., that no one could be converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets.
As Originally Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations wouldincrease and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from errorto truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had onlywrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Someappeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their heartscould be seen they would appear as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to lookfor the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for thetime for their salvation is past." Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849.
As Now Published
"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations wouldincrease and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from errorto truth. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners asused to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation ispast." Page 37, edition of 1882.
Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these suppressed passages, why don'tthey? They know very well what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the book isrepublished "under her own eye" and all these passages left out when it isstates that "no changes from the original work have been made." I have bothbooks before me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do they; yet they keepright on sending it out.
6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four volumes, under theeye of her own son and a critical editor. Opening hap-hazard to four different pages inVol. I., I read and compared them with the original publication which I have. I found anaverage TWENTY-FOUR CHANGES OF THE WORDS ON EACH PAGE! Her words were thrown out and otherwords put in and other changes made, in some cases so many that it was difficult to readthe two together. At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes.
Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, by her copyist, by her son,by her editors, and those copied from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenthto one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! The common reader knows nothingabout these damaging facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been where Isaw it myself.
I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for all of her books are full ofthem. I will select but a few.
THE SHUT DOOR. For several years after 1844, Mrs. White had visions saying thatprobation ended in that year, that there was no more salvation for sinners. Of course shehas to deny this now, but the proof is overwhelmingly against her.
1. Seventh-day Adventists are compelled to admit that for some time after 1844Adventists did hold that probation was ended. Even Mrs. White admits it. She says:"After the passing of the time of expectation, in 1844, Adventists still believed theSaviour's coming to be very near; they held that...the work of Christ as man's intercessorbefore God had ceased. Having given the warning of the judgment near, they felt that theirwork for the world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the salvation ofsinners.... All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as theythen expressed it, 'the door of mercy was shut.'" Great Controversy, page 268. Thisstatement of Mrs. White herself is enough to settle the point that the Adventists believed"the door of mercy was shut" in 1844. Notice here that the "shut door"means the end of probation, the close of mercy for sinners.
Mr. Miller for a while advocated the shut door in 1844. He says: "We have done ourwork in warning sinners and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence hasSHUT THE DOOR; we can only stir one another up to be patient." Advent Herald, Dec.11, 1844.
Then in the Voice of Truth, Feb. 19, 1845, he says: "I have not seen a genuineconversion since."
Elder G.I. Butler, in the Review and Herald, March 3, 1885, says: "As the timepassed there was a general feeling among all the earnest believers that their work for theworld was done." "There can be no question that for months after the time passedit was the general sentiment that their work of warning the world was over.""Their burden was gone, and they thought their work was done." Yes; that is justwhat they did believe, probation was ended.
2. I have conversed with several individuals who affirm positively that they heard herteach this repeatedly. There are many now living who will swear that they heard her teachit.
3. Written testimony. John Megquier, Saco, Me., a man noted for his integrity, writes:"We well know the course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the state ofMaine. About the first visions she had were at my house in Poland. She said that God hadtold her in vision that the door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance for theworld." The True Sabbath, by Miles Grant, page 70. Mrs. L.S. Burdick, San Francisco,California, was well acquainted with Mrs. White. She writes: "I became acquaintedwith James White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) early in 1845. At the time of my firstacquaintance with them they were in wild fanaticism, used to sit on the floor instead ofchairs, and creep around the floor like little children. Such freaks were considered amark of humility. They were not married, but traveling together. Ellen was having what wascalled visions; said God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose on the tenth dayof the seventh month, 1844, and shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediatorialthrone; the whole world was doomed and lost and there never could be another sinnersaved." L.S. Burdick, "True Sabbath," page 72. O.R.L. Crosier kept theSabbath with them in 1848. He writes: "Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1, 1887. Yes, I KNOWthat Ellen G. Harmon, now Mrs. White, held the shut door theory at that date." Thenhe gives the proof. These persons knew the facts and have put their testimony on record.
4. The Present Truth. James White, editor, Oswego, N.Y., May, 1850, has an article bythe editor on the "Sanctuary, 2300 Days, and the Shut Door." Elder White says:"At that point of time [1844] the midnight cry was given, the work for the world wasclosed up, and Jesus passed into the Most Holy place.... When we came up to that point oftime, all our sympathy, burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feelingand testimony was that our work for the world was finished forever.... He [Jesus] is stillmerciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still THEIR advocate and priest;but the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who hadrejected the offers of salvation, was LEFT WITHOUT AN ADVOCATE when Jesus passed from theholy place and shut that door in 1844." Any honest man can see that the shut doormeant no salvation for sinners, and this is what Elder White taught in 1850. In a reportof labor in the Advent Review, May 15, 1850, Elder White, in noticing the death of asister Hastings, says: "She embraced the Sabbath in 1846, and has ever believed thatthe work of warning the world closed in 1844."
Again: "Many will point us to one who is said to be converted, for positive proofthat the door is not shut, thus yielding the word of God for the feelings of anindividual." Present Truth, Dec. 1849. This shows that they held to the shut dooridea for years after 1844. What a fanatical and abominable doctrine that was forChristians to teach! Mrs. White was right with them and in full harmony with them on thisall these years. She had revelations almost daily. If they were of God, why did she notcorrect them in this fearful error? Even if she had said nothing confirming this delusion,yet the simple fact that she had no revelation contradicting it all during these years, isenough to destroy her claim to inspiration. But the fact is, she taught this error asstrongly in her visions as the brethren did in their arguments.
Here are her own words: "March 24, 1849.... I was shown that the commandments ofGod and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not beseparated.... I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations wouldincrease and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from errorto truth but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrappedabout them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Someappeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their heartscould be seen they would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me to lookfor the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for thetime for their salvation is past." Present Truth, pages 21-22, published August,1849.
Here you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners just as clear as language can makeit. Every candid reader knows what it teaches. It is pitiable to see the shifts and turns,evasions, dodges, quibbles, if not something worse, resorted to on this passage to saveMrs. White's visions. But there it stands, to mock at all their efforts. Here is anotherpassage teaching the same doctrine: "it was just as impossible for them to get on thepath again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected." 'AWord to the Little Flock,' page 14, published in 1847. At this time, then, God hadrejected the wicked world - shut door, you see.
Here is another vision in which she teaches the doctrine of the shut door in its veryworst form, that is that after 1844 not one ray of light comes from Jesus to the wickedbut they are all turned over to the devil to whom they now pray instead of to God. AfterJesus left the holy place she says: "I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesusto the careless multitude after he arose and they were left in perfect darkness.... Satanappeared to be by the throne trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to thethrone and pray, Father give us thy spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholyinfluence." Early Writings, pages 46-47. Not one ray of light comes to sinners since1844 but all are left to the Devil! What is the use of their denying that she taught thisdoctrine? She certainly did and she knows it. This fact and the bold denial of it now,brand her as a false teacher.
I will briefly notice some other mistakes she had made, enough to show that she iswholly unreliable.
1. For over forty years she, herself, has been constantly expecting the end of theworld, and it has not come yet. This alone ought to open the eyes of all to see that shehas no knowledge of the future.
2. Slaves. In 1849 she foretold what would happen when Jesus comes, and said: "Isaw the pious slave rise in triumph and victory and shake off the chains that bound him,while his wicked master was in confusion." Early Writings, page 28. But now there areno slaves. She had not then dreamed of the abolition of slavery.
3. Nations angry. "The nations are NOW getting angry." Early Writings, page29. That was thirty-eight years ago. It takes a long time for them to get fighting mad!
4. Another mistake. "Some are looking too far off for the coming of theLord." Page 49. That was thirty-eight years ago, and no Adventist then looked fortime to last ten years.
5. Another blunder. "The time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearlyfinished." Page 49. Jesus went there in 1844. Hence, he had then been there sixyears. She saw that the time for him to be there was nearly finished, but it has continuedsixty years since. A false prediction, as any one can see.
6. A few months only in 1849. "Now time is almost finished, and what we have been[six] years learning, they [new converts] will have to learn in a few months." Page57. But instead of a few months, they have had sixty years!
7. She broke the Sabbath for eleven years. Though she had vision after vision about theSabbath, yet for eleven years they all began it at six P.M. instead of at sunset as thelaw requires. Lev. 23:32. When they found their mistake, she saw it, too, in vision. Shesays: "I acquired why it has been thus that at this late date we must change."Testimony No. 1, page 13. A poor leader she.
8. Her predictions about the rebellion a failure. "Jan. 4, 1862, I was shown somethings in regard to our nation." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 253. All will remember thegreat anxiety and uncertainty of those days. How would the war end? Specially were herpeople anxious, as they were non-combatants and liable to the draft. Here was an inspiredprophetess right in their midst, having abundant revelations about the length of women'sdresses, what people should eat, etc. What relief to all would have been a few short wordsfrom heaven about the results of the war. The pressure upon her for light was so greatthat she had to say something. So she took her pen and scribbled away through thirty-twolong pages about the war. At this date it is amusing to read it. This"revelation" alone is enough to show that she knows absolutely nothing of thefuture. All she wrote was merely a restatement of the popular view of the matter at thetime. I shall quote a few sentences as samples. "The system of slavery, which hasruined our nation, is left to live and stir up another rebellion." Was slavery leftto stir up another rebellion? Now we know that statement was utterly untrue.
Again: "It seemed impossible to have the war conducted successfully," page256. Another failure, for it was conducted successfully. All can see that her ideas werejust those generally rife at the time. I have long watched and studied her carefully, tillI have become satisfied that this is always true of her prophesyings - they are whollymoulded by the sentiment around her at the time. Here is another: "This nation willyet be humbled into the dust," page 259. Was it? No. Again: "When England doesdeclare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will begeneral war," page 259. Did anything of this kind happen? No; but it is just what allthen expected. Once more: "Had our nation remained united, it would have hadstrength; but divided, it MUST FALL," page 260. How it did fall! "I was showndistress and perplexity and famine in the land," page 260. Just what all expectedthen; but where was the famine? "It looked to me like an impossibility now forslavery to be done away," page 266. Of course it did, for that was just the way itlooked to all others then. But did it look that way to God? That was the question. Was hetelling her?
She claims that what she writes is not merely her own ideas but the mind of Godhimself. Thus: "I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my ownideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision." Testimony, No. 31, page 63.This, then, was the way the thing looked to God at that time! Again: "Blood has beenpoured out like water, and for naught." Testimony for the Church, Vol. I, page 367.Was it for naught, ye brave soldiers? Ye liberated slaves? Ye freed nation? I could givescores of such quotations all through her writings, showing how they have failed alwaysand everywhere.
The Reform Dress
One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever made, one which plainly showed her fanaticismand that God had nothing to do with her work, was the move she made on dress. First shewrote: "God would not have his people adopt the so-called reform dress,"Testimonies, Vol. I, page 421. "If women would wear their dresses so as to clear thefilth of the streets an inch or two," it would be in harmony with their faith, page424. Four years pass, and she again writes: "God would now have his people adopt thereform dress," page 525. "Nine inches as nearly accords my views of the matteras I am able to express it in inches," page 521. Here are two revelations exactlyopposite as to the style of dress and the length, an inch or two, then nine inches, fromthe ground is the length. What occasioned this change in the mind of the Lord? The answeris easy: In the time between the two revelations Mrs. White had spent some time at Dr.Jackson's "Home," Dansville, N.Y. Here a short dress with pants was worn, andshe fell in with the idea and soon had a vision requiring its adoption as above. That isthe whole of it. But the dress was a shame and a disgrace and an utter failure. Think of amodest woman on the streets with pants on, and her dress cut half way up to the knees! Butfor eight years Mrs. White pushed that dress with all her power, put it on herself as anexample, till most of the sisters put it on. But it created a terrible commotion. Husbandsswore, brothers refused to walk with their sisters, men sneered and boys hooted. Some ofthe sisters argued, some cried, some rebelled, but most submitted. I know, for my own wifewore it for eight years - had to. Finally, Mrs. White quietly dropped it off herself, andnow no one wears it. Here they are all living in direct violation of a plain revelationfrom God! Common sense came out ahead of fanaticism.
If God ever spoke through Mrs. White about anything, he did about the dress, requiringthe woman to wear it. I was there and know how she urged it, heard her many times. HerTestimonies at the time were full of it. She said: "I have done my duty; I havebourne my testimony, and those who have heard me and read that which I have written, mustnow bear the responsibility of receiving or rejecting the light given. If they choose toventure to be forgetful hearers, and not doers of the work, they run their own risk, andwill be accountable to God!" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 525. Yet they have all run therisk and laid off the dress, Mrs. White with the rest. How does she get out of it? By allsorts of dodges, by blaming everybody but herself. It has been a great stumbling block tothem.
Her Revelations Influenced by Others
Mrs. White originates nothing. In her visions she always sees just what she and herfriends at the time happen to believe and be interested in. Her husband and other leadingmen first accept or study out a theory and talk it till her mind is full of it. Then whenshe is in her trance that is just what she sees. One who has been all through the Adventwork and well knows, says: "The visions have brought out no points of faith held bySeventh-day Adventists."
Mrs. White herself confesses that she is influenced by others in writing her"Testimonies." Thus: pages 138-139. "What appeared in Testimony No. 11,concerning the Health Institute should not have been given until I was able to write outall I had seen in regard to it.... I yielded my judgment to that of others and wrote whatappeared in No. 11.... In this I did wrong." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 563. She here"lets the cat out of the bag." She made such a blunder that she was compelled toblame some one else for it and so to tell the truth that she was influenced by others todo it! Fine inspiration.
Elder White was well aware of how she was influenced by others to see and write as theyimpressed her to do. Hence he was very jealous of having leading men talk anything to heralone opposing his views, for he feared she would then have a revelation favoring them andopposing him as indeed she did towards the last. Thus he wrote: "The pressure hasbeen terribly hard on my poor wife. She has been impressed very much by Elders Butler andHaskell." Again: "I think my wife has been more severe than the Lord reallyrequired her to be in some cases. Satan has taken great advantage.... Elders Butler andHaskell have had an influence over her that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruinedher. These men must not be supported by our people to do as they have done." JamesWhite, Battle Creek, May 25, 1881. That shows the confidence which her own husband had inher revelations.
The Philosophy of Mrs. White's Visions
The proof is abundant that Mrs. White's visions are merely the result of nervousdisease, a complication of hysteria, catalepsy and ecstasy. That she honestly believes inthem herself, I do not doubt. I have personally known four other women, all Seventh-dayAdventists, who likewise had visions. All were sincere Christians, and fully believed intheir own visions. But all were sickly, nervous females, and hysterical. Not beingencouraged in them, but opposed by their ministers, they finally gave them up. In everyage such cases have been numerous, of whom a few, like Mrs. Southcott, Mrs. Ann Lee andMrs. White, have become noted for awhile.
Medical books and cyclopedias, under the words "hysteria,""catalepsy" and "ecstasy," give a complete description of Mrs. White'scase, as stated by herself and husband. This anyone may see by one day's study. My spacewill allow me to give but a few points.
1. The sex - a female. "The vast preponderance of hysteria in the female sex hasgiven rise to its name." Raynold's System of Medicine, article, Hysteria. So say allthe authorities. This fits Mrs. White, a female.
2. The age. "Hysteria is infinitely more common among females, beginning usuallyfrom fifteen to eighteen or twenty years of age." Theory and Practice of Medicine, byRoberts, page 399. "In the female sex, hysteria usually commences at or about thetime of puberty, i.e., between twelve and eighteen years of age." Raynold's System ofMedicine, article, Hysteria. Here again it exactly fits the case of Mrs. White. She hadher first vision at the age of seventeen. See Testimonies, Vol. I, page 62."Notwithstanding this mode of life, their health does not materiallydeteriorate." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Hysteria. So with Mrs. White. She hasgradually improved in health and her visions have as gradually ceased. At first she hadvisions almost daily, but they have grown less frequent as she grew older and healthier,till after about forty-five years of age, since which time she has not averaged one infive years, and even these are short and light, till now she has ceased entirely to havethem. Now read this: "Hysteria generally attacks women from the age of puberty to thedecline of the peculiar functions of her sex." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article,Hysteria. Mrs. White's case again, exactly.
3. The cause. Hysteria, catalepsy, epilepsy and ecstasy are all nervous diseases, whichsometimes co-exist or alternate or blend together so it is difficult to distinguish them.The causes noted are: "1. Mental disturbance, especially emotional; for example, asudden fright, prolonged grief or anxiety. 2. Physical influences affecting the brain, asa BLOW OR FALL ON THE HEAD." Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 393."In ten of my cases the disease was due to reflex causes, which consisted in sixcases of injuries to the head." Fundamental Nervous Disease, Putzel, page 66. This isMrs. White again, exactly. At the age of nine she received a terrible blow on the face,which broke her nose and nearly killed her. She was unconscious for three weeks. See herlife in Testimony, Vol. I, pages 9-10. This shock to her nervous system was the real causeof all the visions she afterwards had.
4. Always weakly and sickly. "Most hysterical persons are out of health."Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 404. "Fainting fits, palpitation ofthe heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons affected withthem seem to be dying." Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. Now read the lifeof Mrs. White, and she tells it over and over, times without number, about faintingfrequently, pain at the heart, and about being so sick that she expected to die. And it isremarkable that most of her visions were immediately preceded by one of these faintingdeath spells. This shows plainly that they are the result of nervous weakness. She says:"My feelings were unusually sensitive." Testimonies Vol. I, page 12. Now readthis: "Woman...whose nervous system is extremely sensitive, are the most subject tohysterical affections," Encyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria. An exact fit.
Mrs. White's Physical Condition as Written by Herself in Testimony, Vol. I
When nine years old a girl hit her on the nose with a stone, broke her nose, and nearlykilled her. Page 9. "I lay in a stupor for three weeks." Page 10. "I wasreduced almost to a skeleton." Page 11. "My health seemed to be hopelesslyimpaired." Page 12. "My nervous system was prostrated." Page 13. Here wasthe origin of her hysteria of after years. In this condition she "listened to thestartling announcement that Christ was coming in 1843." Page 14. "These wordskept ringing in my ears; 'the great day of the Lord is at hand.'" Page 15. "Ifrequently attended the meetings and believed that Jesus was soon to come." Page 22.Of her impression of hell she says: "My imagination would be so wrought upon that theperspiration would start." Page 24. "I feared that I would lose my reason."Page 25. At one time she did become insane for two weeks as she writes herself. SpiritualGifts, Vol. II, page 51. She continues: "My health was very poor." Testimonies,Vol. I, page 55. It was thought that she could live but a few days. Then it was that shehad her first vision, really a fit. Page 58. "I was but seventeen years of age, smalland frail." Page 62. "My strength was taken away," and angels talk withher. Page 64. "My friends thought I could not live.... Immediately taken off invision." Page 67. Notice that her visions happen when she is very sick! This tellsthe story; they are the result of her physical weakness. If it was the power of the HolyGhost, why didn't God send it when she was well? Why not?
"I often fainted like one dead." The next day she was well and "rodethirty-eight miles." Page 80. This is characteristic of hysterical females, as allknow who have seen them. They are just dying one hour and all well the next. Mrs. Whitehas gone through that a thousand times. She is just dying, is prayed for, is healed byGod, and all well in a few minutes. In a few days she goes right over it again. But if Godheals her, why doesn't she stay healed? This used to bother me. When Jesus healed a man,did he have to go back and be healed over again every few days? She goes on: "Ifainted under the burden. Some feared I was dying.... I was soon lost to earthlythings" - had a vision. Page 86. Again: "I fainted. Prayer was offered for meand I was blessed and taken off in vision." Page 88. There you have it, the same oldstory. It is simply her hysterical imagination, nothing more. Next page. "Ifainted...taken off in vision." So she goes on all through her book. Says theEncyclopedia Americana, article, Hysteria: "Fainting fits, palpitation of the heartappear very frequently and are sometimes so severe that persons afflicted with them seemto be dying." Mrs. White exactly.
On page after page the same story is repeated by herself. In the account of her lastvision, Jan. 3, 1875, she was very sick till it ended in a vision. Testimonies, Vol. III,page 570. Dreadful sick, almost dead, then a vision - this is the story, times withoutnumber, from her own pen. That tells the story. The vision is the result of her physicalweakness.
5. Visions in public. "As a rule a fit of hysteria occurs when other persons arepresent, and never comes on during sleep." Theory and Practice of Medicine, byRoberts, page 401. Most of her visions occur in public, and generally while she is verysick, or when praying or speaking earnestly. This was the case with her first vision.Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 30. So, again, on pages 37, 48, 51, 62, 83, and many more,she has her visions in the presence of many. I do not know that she ever had a visionalone.
6. Inclination to Exaggerate and Deceive. All medical books state that hystericalpersons are given to exaggeration and deception. The inclination is irresistible. Nothingcan break them of it. Gurnsey's Obstetrics, article Hysteria, says: "Such personsentertain their hearers with marvelous tales of the greatness and exploits of their pastlives.... These accounts are uttered with an air of sincerity well calculated to deceivethe honest listener, and such unbridled license of the imagination and total obliviousnessin regard to the truth, which are vulgarly attributed to an entire want of principle andthe most inordinate vanity, are in reality due to that morbid condition of the femaleorganism which is designed by the comprehensive term hysteria."
Mrs. White is always telling what great things she has done. The deception which she sooften practices, and which I have witnessed in her myself, is here accounted for onprinciples which do not impeach the moral character, and I am glad to accept theexplanation.
7. Does not breathe. "Stoppage of respiration usually complete.""Generally appears to hold his breath." Robert's Theory and Practice ofMedicine, page 393-394. Elder White, describing her condition in vision says: "Shedoes not breathe." Life Incidents, page 272. They always refer to this fact withgreat confidence as proof of the supernatural in her visions; but it will be seen that itis common in these diseases.
8. Importance of self. "There is a prevailing belief in the importance of self,and the patient thinks that she differs from every other human being." Raynold'sSystem of Medicine, article, Hysteria. Mrs. White to a hair. Hear her laud herself:"It is God, and not an erring mortal, who has spoken." "God has laid uponmy husband and myself a special work." "God has appointed us to a more tryingwork than he has others." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 257, 258, 160. I have knownher nearly thirty years, and I never knew her to make confession of a single sin or evilin all that time, not she. Seventh-day Adventists ridicule the Pope's claim toinfallibility but they themselves are bowing to the authority of a woman who makes higherclaims to infallibility than ever pope or prophet did. Space will not allow me to fill outevery particular of her experience by quotations from medical works compared with her ownstatements; but even these given above are sufficient to show the nature and philosophy ofher attacks. They are the result of nervous disease, precisely the same as has been oftenseen in the case of thousands of other sickly females.
9. Testimony of Three Physicians. Dr. Fairfield was brought up a Seventh-day Adventist;was for years a physician in their Sanitarium at Battle Creek. He has had the bestopportunity to observe Mrs. White. He writes: "Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 1887.Dear Sir: You are undoubtedly right in ascribing Mrs. E.G. White's so-called visions todisease. It has been my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering quite aperiod of years, which, with a full knowledge of her history from the beginning, gave meno chance to doubt her ("divine") attacks to be simply hysterical trances. Ageitself has almost cured her. W.J. Fairfield, M.D."
Dr. Wm. Russell, long a Seventh-day Adventist, and a chief physician in the Sanitarium,wrote July 12th, 1869, that he had made up his mind some time in the past, "that Mrs.White's visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain ornervous system." "When giving to a conference at Pilot Grove, Iowa, 1865, anaccount of her visit at Dr. Jackson's health institute, she stated that the doctor, upon amedical examination, pronounced her a subject of hysteria." Mrs. White's ClaimsExamined, page 76.
Here is the testimony of three physicians, who have personally examined Mrs. White. Shejoined the Millerites in their great excitement of 1843-44. In their meetings she oftenfainted from excitement. In the enthusiasm and fanaticism of the time many had various"gifts," visions, trances, etc. She drank deeply of their spirit. The grief anddisappointment of the passing of the set time were too much for her feeble condition. SaysDr. Roberts: "The exciting cause of the first hysterical fit is generally somepowerful sudden emotional disturbance." "Sometimes the attack is preceded bydisappointment, fear, violent, exciting or even religious emotions." Library ofUniversal Knowledge, article, Catalepsy. Just her case in 1844, in the great excitementand disappointment she then met.
Has Visions of Heaven, Angels, Etc.
Dr. George B. Wood's "Practice of Medicine," page 721 of Vol. II, in treatingof mental disorders, and explaining the cause and phenomena of trances, says:"Ecstasy is an affection in which, with a loss of consciousness of existingcircumstances, and insensibility to impression from without, there is an apparentexaltation of the intellectual or emotional functions, as if the individual were raisedinto a different nature, or different sphere of existence. The patient appears wrapped upin some engrossing thought or feeling, with an expression upon his countenance as of loftycontemplations or ineffable delight.... Upon recovering from the spell, the patientgenerally remembers his thoughts and feelings more or less accurately, and sometimes tellsof wonderful visions that he has seen, of visits to the regions of the blessed, ofravishing harmony and splendor, of inexpressible enjoyment of the senses oraffections."
A person perfectly familiar with Mrs. White could not have described her visions moreaccurately. Another high medical authority, in describing ecstasy and catalepsy, says:"It often happens that the two diseases alternate or co-exist. In ecstasy the limbsare motionless, but not rigid. The eyes are open, the pupils fixed, the livid lips partedin smiles, and the arms extended to embrace the beloved vision. The body is erect andraised to its utmost height, or else is extended at full length in recumbent posture. Apeculiar radiant smile illuminates the countenance, and the whole aspect and attitude isthat of intense mental exaltation. Sometimes the patient is silent, the mind beingapparently absorbed in meditation, or in the contemplation of some beatific vision.Sometimes there is mystical speaking or prophesying, or singing, or the lips may be movedwithout any sound escaping.... Usually there is complete insensibility to externalimpressions. Ecstasy is often associated with religious monomania. It was formerly quitecommon among the inmates of convents, and is now not infrequently met with atcamp-meetings and other gatherings of a similar nature. Many truly devout people areextatics." G. Durant, M.D., Ph.D., member of American Medical Association, Fellow ofthe New York Academy of Medicine, etc., etc., recipient of several medals, etc.
This is Mrs. White's case very clearly. Hundreds of similar ones have occurred in everyage, and are constantly occurring now. The sad part of it is that so many honest souls aredeluded into receiving all this as a divine revelation.
Much in many ways:
1. It is an error and a deception.
2. She deceives herself and others.
3. She teaches false doctrines.
4. She has a harsh, uncharitable spirit, and begets this in all her followers.
5. She builds up an isolated sect, and thus destroys all their influence for good.
6. Her teachings make her people narrow, bigoted, and gloomy. Thus she blasts the peaceof thousands of souls.
7. It leads her advocates to deceive. Being afraid that it will hurt them in newplaces, if it is known in what light they really hold her visions, they keep them back aslong as they can and then they deny that it is a matter of importance with them. This isfalse and deceptive, for they hold faith in her visions to be as important as keeping theSabbath, and they hold her visions to be as sacred as the Bible.
8. To defend her mistakes and errors, both she and her apologists have to deny theplainest facts and resort to arguments very questionable.
9. To defend her errors, they compare them to supposed errors in the Bible, and thusdestroy faith in that book.
10. She rules her whole people with a rod of iron, and dictates to them in everything,even the smallest and most private affairs of family life. She boasts that her work"is to come down to the minutiae of life." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 608. Withthis idea she meddles with everything public and private, and all the affairs of families,till it becomes, to a man of spirit, an intolerable bore. She meddles between husband andwife, parents and children, breaks up marriage engagements which do not suit her, dictatesto all her followers what they shall eat, how, and when; the cut and color of their dress;their business, the disposition of their means, etc., etc. In proof of this let a personread any of her "Testimonies," for they are full of it.
11. Her severity and harshness have driven many to despair, others to back- slide, andothers out of the church. I can name many individuals and families whose happiness she hasblasted. She broke the heart and darkened the life of my first wife by her cruel words toher. Any one who dares to get in her way must either succumb, be crushed, or driven out.The effort to bind her visions as inspired upon the faith and consciences of the wholedenomination has produced continual wrangling, division, and much bitter feeling, rightamong themselves for the last sixty years. Families, churches and conferences have beendivided over them, while hundreds, yes, thousands, have been driven from them because theywould not accept Mrs. White's visions as inspired.
12. They produce doubts and infidelity. When those who have been led to firmly believethem finally come to see that they have been deceived, then they are in danger of losingfaith in everything and so becoming out and out infidels, or at least skeptical. Largenumbers have gone to ruin that way whom I have personally known. Some have gone to theSpiritualists, some to the Free Thinkers, some to the Shakers, some to the Mormons, andsome to the world. They have nearly driven Mrs. White herself into infidelity. Here areher own words: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that Ishall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. How unlike the apostlesthat sounds.
Mrs. White Becomes Rich
There is no example in the Bible where a prophet took advantage of his inspiration toenrich himself. They generally worked hard, had little, and died poor. But Mrs. Whitebegan poverty poor. She says: "We entered upon our work penniless." Testimonies,Vol. I, page 75. But as soon as they became leaders, they managed to supply themselveswell. Since I knew them, thirty years ago, they have had an abundance, and have used meansfor themselves lavishly. They would always have the best and plenty of it. Everywhere theywent they required to be waited upon in the most slavish manner. Mrs. White dresses veryrichly, often is furnished women to wait on her, and all their time and expenses are paidby the conference.
When Elder White died he left a large fortune. He was a sharp business man, and tookadvantage of his position to benefit himself and his family, and she aided him in it byher revelations. How different from Mr. Moody! Mrs. White is eighty years old, is worththousands, has a large income, has not a single soul dependent upon her, says that time isabout to end, urges all to cut down their possessions, yet takes large royalty on all hernumerous books and seems as eager for money as others. How is this?
The last year I was with them she received $18 per week, was furnished two women towait upon her and all traveling expenses paid. The same year they sold 20,000 copies ofGreat Controversy on which she received a royalty of $2,500 besides and income from allher other works. Her inspiration has paid her well financially.
Take an example or two of how she used her revelations to make money: In 1868 ElderWhite had on hand several thousand dollars' worth of old books which were dead property,as they were not selling and were growing out of date. He hit on a plan to raise a"book fund" for the free distribution of books and tracts. This fund he used tobuy out his and her old books! When the money did not come fast enough, she had arevelation about it thus: "Why do not our brethren send in their pledges on the bookand tract fund more liberally? And why do not our ministers take hold of this work inearnest? ...We shall not hold our peace upon this subject. Our people will come up to thework. The means will come. And we would say to those who are poor and want books, send inyour orders.... We will send you a package of books containing four volumes of SpiritualGifts, How to Live, Appeal to Youth, Appeal to Mothers, Sabbath Readings and the two largecharts, with key of explanation,... and charge the fund four dollars." Testimonies,Vol. I, page 689. Every one of these books was their own. The money came and they pocketedit all. I was there and know.
Mrs. White now has forty inspired books. To sell these, every possible effort is madethrough every channel. She is constantly urging it by all her inspired authority. Hearher: "The volumes of Spirit of Prophecy and also the Testimonies should be introducedinto every Sabbath keeping family.... Let them be worn out in being read by all theneighbors.... Prevail upon them to buy copies.... Light so precious, coming from thethrone of God, is hid under a bushel. God will make his people responsible for thisneglect." Testimonies, Vol. IV, pages 390, 391. So, of course, her books must bepushed and sold while she makes money. It pays to be inspired!
Why I Once Believed Mrs. White Inspired
1. I once accepted Mrs. White's claim to inspiration for the same reason that most ofher followers do. I first accepted the Sabbath and then the other points of the faith tillI came to believe it all.
2. Once among and of them I found all stating in strong terms that Mrs. White wasinspired of God. I supposed they knew, and so took their word for it; and that is what allthe others do as they come in, deny it as they may.
3. I soon found that her revelations were so connected with the whole history andbelief of that church that I could not consistently separate them any more than a personcould be a Mormon and not believe in Joseph Smith. I believed the other doctrines sofirmly that I swallowed the visions with the rest, and that is what all do.
4. When I began to have suspicions about the visions I found the pressure so strongthat I feared to express them, or even to admit them to myself. All said such doubts wereof the Devil and would lead to a rejection of the truth and then to ruin. So I dared notentertain them nor investigate the matter; and this is the way it is with others.
5. I saw that all who expressed any doubts about the visions were immediately brandedas "rebels," as "in the dark," "led by Satan,""infidels," etc.
6. Having no faith in any other doctrine or people, I did not know what to do nor whereto go. So I tried to believe the visions and go along just as thousands of them do whenreally they are in doubt about them all the time.
Her last Testimony just out reveals the fact that there is a wide-spread effort amongher people to modify her high claims. She protests vehemently and warns them to keep theirhands off. Sooner or later there must be a revolt against her claims.
The following from Chamber's Encyclopedia, article, Southcott, is also applicable toMrs. White and her followers: "The history of Joanna Southcott herself has not muchin it that is marvelous; but the influence which she exercised over others may well bedeemed so, and the infatuation of her followers is hard to be understood, particularlywhen it is considered that some of them were men of some intelligence and of cultivatedmind. Probably the secret of her influence lay in the fact that the poor creature was inearnest about her delusions. So few people in the world are really so that they are alwaysliable to be enslaved by others who have convictions of any kind, however grotesque. Onher death-bed Joanna said: 'If I have been misled, it has been by some spirit, good orevil.' Poor Joanna never suspected that the spirit which played such vagaries was herown."
Just so of Mrs. White. It is marvelous that with all the proof of her failuresintelligent men are still led by her. But the case of Joanna, of Ann Lee, and others,helps us to solve this one. All have earnestly believed in their own inspiration, and thisalone has convinced others.
The Adventists' Addition to the Bible
"The Bible and the Bible Only, as a Rule of Faith and Practice," is theProtestant watchword for which saints have fought and martyrs died.
The Catholic church has the Bible and - and - something else - an infallible Pope tointerpret it.
The Swedenborg church has the Bible and - and - something else - Swedenborg'srevelation to interpret it.
The Shakers have the Bible and - and - something else - Mother Ann Lee's revelation tointerpret it.
The Mormons have the Bible and - and - something else - Joe Smith's revelations tointerpret it.
Christian Scientists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. Eddy's Scienceand Health to tell what it means.
Seventh-day Adventists have the Bible and - and - something else - Mrs. White'srevelations to interpret it.
Each of the above churches has done exactly the same thing, namely, has put right alongwith the good old Bible another interpreter to tell what that old Bible really means.Whatever these new interpreters say it means, all their members must accept as truewithout further question. Dare a Catholic dispute the Pope's interpretation, or a Mormondispute Smith's, or an Adventist dispute Mrs. White's interpretation? No indeed.
That the Sabbath of the decalogue was partly moral and partly ceremonial, or positive,in its nature has been the doctrine of the church as taught by its best theologians in allages. Take a few examples out of scores that could be given. Watson's TheologicalInstitutes, the great Methodist standard, says: "But as the command is partlypositive and partly moral, it may have circumstances which are capable of being altered inperfect obedience with the moral principles on which it rests." Vol. II, page 511. SoScott's Commentary on Ex. 20:8-10 says: "The separation of a portion of our time tothe immediate service of God is doubtless of moral obligation.... But the exactproportion, as well as the particular day, may be considered as a positiveinstitution."
The moral basis of the Sabbath is readily manifest. That man should devote some part ofhis time to the special service and worship of God is reasonable, and we would naturallyexpect that the Lord would, in some way, designate such time, just as he did do in theSabbath precept.
Experience proves that man's physical nature requires a day of rest about as often asone in seven. Many experiments have been tried and careful observations made, all showingthat both men and beasts will accomplish more work in a given time, do it in a bettermanner and preserve better health by resting every seventh day than they will by laboringcontinuously. This is the testimony of business men and of eminent physicians. Hence theSabbath rest had its foundation in nature itself. The mind also requires a day of rest asregularly as the body. Constant thought and mental application is ruinous to the mind.This has been proved in the case of students, lawyers, business men, etc. Socially andreligiously, the weekly rest day is of the utmost importance to man's highest good. Allother means combined can hardly equal the observance of the Lord's day for the purpose.
Then as to the influence of the church and its power for good, its hold upon its ownmembers and upon community, its opportunity to teach and preach the gospel, the regularweekly rest day is its strong hold as all well know. Hence, if ever a law of God had amoral basis, the Sabbath commandment has. "The Sabbath was made for man" becausehe needed it physically, mentally, socially, morally and religiously. Mr. Gladstone say:"Sunday is a necessity for the retention of man's mind and of a man's frame in acondition to discharge his duties."
All experience shows that a Sabbathless community is a godless, immoral, and,generally, a thriftless community. Hence he is an enemy of society and of religion whowould break down the restraints of such a weekly rest in the community. So we say that theSabbath law rested upon a moral basis in providing a weekly Sabbath for the nation ofIsrael.
The Ceremonial Side of the Sabbath
But when we come to the definite day, which it shall be, nature does not indicate that.All the benefits above mentioned would be secured by keeping one day as well as another.There would not be a particle of difference whichever day was selected. Suppose that allthe churches would change in one week and keep Saturday instead of Sunday, what practicaldifference would it make? None at all. Physical rest, mental rest, social and religiousprivileges, a quiet day, - all that can be secured by one day can by another, so far asthe day is concerned. But to secure the greatest good from the day, all should rest thesame day. Where this is not done confusion and evil follows. Ex. 20:8-11.
God has marked no difference in the nature of days in themselves. All nature goes righton just the same every day alike. We see nothing in one day of the week which differs fromanother, and there is no difference. No day is holy in and of itself and by its ownnature. The learned Dr. Edwards says: "No identical period of duration is, in itself,intrinsically holy." Sabbath Manual, page 92. In every case God had to make the dayholy by a special appointment. The same appointment of some other day would have made itjust as holy.
Nor does nature indicate clearly just the proportion of time to be used. Hence God'sexample of six days' work and the seventh of rest was doubtless given as a model tofollow. To this the Lord pointed in giving the Sabbath law. Ex. 20. And this divine modelall Christians now following in resting on the Lord's day after six day's work.
Another fact which Sabbatarians overlook is that God's act of resting on the day didnot confer any holiness upon it. Gen. 2:3, says: "God blessed the seventh day andsanctified it because that in it HE HAD RESTED. So Ex. 20:11. He "rested the seventhday, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." First, God restedon the day, but that did not make it holy. After that he blessed it but still it was notholy time. Third, he hallowed it, made it holy. So the day was not holy in itself nor didGod's resting on it make it holy.
The Lord has made other days holy, days on which he never rested. The day of atonementwas as holy as the weekly Sabbath. Thus: "It shall be an holy convocation untoyou.... And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul willI destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work.... It shall be unto you aSabbath of rest." Lev. 23:27-32. So there were seven of these yearly holy days. ElderSmith, Adventist, says: "The word SABBATH means REST. That is the one sole idea itconveys, first, last, and all the way between, - cessation from labor, rest. Here wereseven annual days on which there was to be an entire suspension of labor, Were these daysSabbath, or were they not? If they were not, can any one tell us why they were not?"What Was Nailed to the Cross, page 11.
So, then, according to the Bible and the arguments of the Adventists themselves,different days may become holy Sabbath days without the Lord's resting on them or evenblessing them, for he did neither to these days. Further, a day which was once a holySabbath day, so holy that it was death to work on it, as in the case of the day ofatonement, Lev. 23:27-32, may cease to be so and become a common working day. See Col.2:16. Even Adventists do not keep these old holy days. So, then, holiness can be put upona day, taken from it, or changed to another day. It is not necessarily a permanent,unchangeable affair. Let Sabbatarians meditate here awhile. More still: A day onceappointed, and made a holy Sabbath day by God himself, may cease to be such and becomeeven hateful to God. Thus: Isa. 1:13-14, "The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling ofassemblies, I cannot away with; IT IS iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moonsand your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bearTHEM." All these holy days God himself had appointed, but see how he hates them now.Is it any proof, then, that a particular day is holy now because it was once holy? Nonewhatever.
Notice also how many other things were made holy by God's appointment. Under the LAW weread of "the holy temple," "the holy hill," "the holy ark,""the holy instruments," "the holy vessels," "the holywater," "the holy perfume," "The holy altar," "the holyveil," "the holy linen coat," "the holy ointment," "the holynation," "the holy Sabbath," etc. Those pertained to the worship andservice of God in his HOLY TEMPLE, which was "only a shadow," "figure"or "type of the TRUE temple" - the "spiritual house" of Christ,"his body, the church." While they stood as TYPES they were "holy,"and no longer. They had no inherent holiness, but were made holy by the command of God.Law and Gospel, page 43, by S.C. Adams.
Like all the above holy things, the seventh day had no holiness in itself. It had to be"made" so. Mark 2:27. But moral duties are not made. They exist in the verynature of things. For instance, it is morally wrong to murder. It would have been wrongeven if God had given no command against it. But it never would have been wrong to work onthe seventh day unless God had given a commandment to keep it. So, then, the sanctity ofthe day does not rest upon the nature of the day itself, but like a hundred other hallowedthings, simply upon God's appointment, which may be altered any time at his will.
All must admit that this commandment does differ from those which are admitted to bewholly moral. No one could all his lifetime live in open violation of the commandmentsagainst idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, stealing, etc., and yet have the least hopeof heaven. Yet the most zealous Sabbatarian will admit that millions of devout Christianshave lived holy lives who never kept the seventh day, but rested on Sunday instead. AndSunday-keepers will admit that those who keep Saturday instead of Sunday are Christianpeople. Now, certainly, one or the other of these classes does not keep the Sabbathcommandment, if the essential thing is to keep the particular day. Would any seventh-dayman recognize as a Christian any person who would every week violate the letter of anyother commandment? No, nor would he excuse him on any plea of ignorance either. Yet theywill freely admit that thousands right around them who do not keep the Sabbath commandmentas they read it, are yet good people and Christians. So, they themselves being judges,this commandment does differ from the others in some way.
What is a Ceremony?
Adventists claim that there was nothing ceremonial in the decalogue or about theSabbath. But let us consider what a 'ceremony' is. Webster says: "Ceremony. Outwardrite; external form in religion." That is exactly what the observance of the Sabbathwas in Jewish worship. Do not Adventists class the keeping of all the other holy days asceremonial? Yes; but they were all "holy convocations." Lev. 23:2, like theseventh day. Read Elder Smith's own arguments on this point. he says: "Were theseother days which were EXACTLY LIKE THAT, - days of rest and convocation, - were these daysalso Sabbaths, or were they not?" What Was Nailed to the Cross, page 11. Then heargues that they were all Sabbaths like the seventh day. Well, then if the keeping ofthese was a ceremony, and a part of the "ceremonial" law, then the same is trueof the seventh day.
The observance of the Sabbath on a particular day was a ceremonial service, the veryfirst and chief of all their "outward rites and external forms." Thus, Smith'sDictionary of the Bible, article, Law of Moses, under the term "Ceremonial Law,"says: "(3). Holiness of Times. (a) The Sabbath. Ex. 20:8- 11. (b) The SabbaticalYear. (c) Year of Jubilee. (d) The Passover. (e) The Feast of Weeks. (f) Feast ofTabernacles. (g) Feast of Trumpets. (h) Day of Atonement." Thus the Sabbath stands atthe head of all the ceremonial seasons. God himself so places it. Lev. 23:1-44."These are my feasts: Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is theSabbath." Then follow in order all the holy days of the year, the Sabbath standingfirst. It is arranged that way time and again, showing it is so designed. Again, Dr. Smithsays: "The Sabbath was the keynote to a scale of Sabbatical observance consisting ofitself, the seventh month, the seventh year, and the Year of Jubilee."
Adventists argue that the decalogue covers all sins. The greater embraces the lesser,they say. The sixth command prohibits murder, the highest crime of the kind, and thatembraces and so forbids all lesser sins of the kind, as anger, quarreling, malice, hatred,etc. Well, now, let them try that on the fourth command and they will hit a truth whichought to open their eyes, viz.: the weekly Sabbath, as chief and head of all holy seasonsand ceremonials, was placed there to represent all that class in the Jewish law. Rev. Dr.Potts, Methodist, says: "The law under the Mosaic dispensation was formulated intonine moral precepts, with a Sabbath commandment added." The Lord's Day our Sabbath,page 10.
The Sabbath on a Round Earth
In their very nature all purely moral laws are universal and eternal in theirapplication, are binding in heaven, in Eden, on Jews or Gentiles, saints or sinners, nowor hereafter. Test the particular seventh day, Saturday, by that rule, and it failseverywhere. Go to Venus, where the days are about twenty-three hours long, to Jupiter,where they are only about ten hours long; to Saturn, where they are about twelve hourslong, or to some of the larger planets, where their days are much longer than ours. Howcould the inhabitants of those worlds keep our seventh day? They could keep "a"seventh day, their own, but that would not be of the same length of ours, nor come at thesame time of ours. Their seventh day would not be our Saturday, nor would the seventh dayof any two planets be alike, nor come at the same time. All the universe can keep aseventh part of time, but no the same seventh part. Not knowing this, see what a blunderMrs. White made. She says: "I saw that the Sabbath would never be done away, but theredeemed saints, AND ALL THE ANGELIC HOST, will observe it in honor of the great Creatorto all eternity." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 113. Elder U. Smith, BiblicalInstitute, page 145, says: "We infer that the higher orders of his intelligences keepthe Sabbath also.... The Sabbath of each of his creatures will be the Sabbath of all therest, so that all will observe THE SAME PERIOD TOGETHER for the same purpose."
Here you have your definite seventh-day theory with a vengeance. Look at the utterabsurdity and impossibility of the theory. All intelligent beings in heaven and earth andon all the planets, keep "THE SAME PERIOD TOGETHER." So the Sabbath day on thislittle planet of ours regulates the Sabbath days of all the planets in the universe! Iwonder how they manage it in Jupiter, where their days are only ten hours long, or inVenus, where they are twenty- three hours long, or in some of the planets where they areas long as several of our days? As the Sabbath must be kept from sunset to sunset (Lev.23:32), I wonder how they find out, on all those planets, just when it is sunset downhere!
The stubborn facts nearer home show that God's children do not, and cannot, all observe"THE SAME PERIOD TOGETHER." Everybody knows that it is Saturday in India sometwelve hours sooner than it is here, and that it is Saturday here twelve hours after ithas ceased to be Saturday there. In Australia the day begins eighteen hours sooner than itdoes in California. So the Seventh- day brethren in California are working nearly thewhole time that their brethren in Australia are keeping Sabbath! Come even nearer homethan that. The sun sets about three hours later in California than it does in Maine. Sowhen the Seventh-day Adventists in Maine begin to keep the Sabbath at sunset Fridayevening, their own brethren in California, where the sun is yet three hours high, willstill be at work for three hours! So, very few of them on this earth, observe "THESAME PERIOD TOGETHER." While some of them are keeping Sabbath on one part of theearth, others of them are at work on another part of the earth. How much less, then, doall the heavenly hosts keep the same period with men on earth.
Now, if, as Mrs. White and Bro. Smith say, the angels keep our Sabbath, the questionis, with which party do they keep it? With those in Australia, or those in America? If theangels keep the Sabbath at the same time the Sabbatarians keep it in Australia, then theSabbatarians in America are working while the angels keep Sabbath, and so, of course, theangels work while those here rest. So we see how absolutely false and absurd is the theorythat all can keep the Sabbath at the same time.
I have to confess that for many years I was so stupid as to suppose that the Lordhimself kept the Sabbath at the same time I did here. I supposed that when the sun setFriday evening and I began keeping the Sabbath, the Lord and the angels began keeping ittoo. But now I see how utterly impossible that is; for if the Lord keeps the Sabbath atthe same time I do here, then he does not keep it with the brethren on the other side ofthe globe, because they begin the Sabbath at least twelve hours earlier than we do here.In fact, it takes just forty-eight hours, or the time of two whole days, from the time anyone day begins in the extreme east till it ends at the furthest place in the west. Willthe reader stop and think carefully, sharply, on this point, for it is an important one?It takes twenty-four hours for the FIRST END of a day to go clear around the earth. Then,as the LAST END of the day is twenty-four hours behind the FIRST END, it must also havetwenty-four hours more to go clear around the earth, and that makes forty-eight hours inall that each day is on the earth somewhere.
I am quite certain that the average Sabbatarian feels he keeps the seventh day that heis now keeping holy time with the Lord himself, and with the angels, and with all hisbrethren. I used to feel that way I know, and the above quotations from Mrs. White andElder Smith show plainly that even they think so, too. But it will be seen that thiscannot be so unless the Lord keeps the time of two whole days each week. And in that case,those on this side of the earth would be working while the Lord was keeping the Sabbathwith those on the other side of the earth. Then those on the opposite of the earth wouldbe working while the Lord kept Sabbath with those on this side. And so none of them wouldkeep the Sabbath with the Lord after all! In fact, taking it all around the earth, thereis not a single hour in the whole week, when there is not some Sabbatarian at work on somepart of the earth!
But, further, does the Lord keep our seventh day with us, or does he keep the seventhday with the people on other planets? Our days and weeks are not at all in harmony withtheirs, nor can one of them be like another. Now, if the Lord rests only on our Saturday,then he could not rest on the seventh day of Venus or Mars or Jupiter, etc., as theseventh day of each planet differs in length and comes at a different time, from that ofour earth or any planet. How, then, could God rest on all these days? If he did he mustkeep Sabbath all the time, and then nobody, angels or men, could keep the Sabbath with theLord if they worked at all!
What, then, becomes of Mrs. White's statement that "ALL THE ANGELIC HOST"keep our Sabbath? or Elder Smith's hypothesis that all the universe will observe "THESAME PERIOD TOGETHER?" Both are utterly absurd. The same definite seventh day cannotbe kept by all the universe; even on this earth alone it cannot be kept by all at the sametime; but all can keep a seventh part of the time. This principle upon which the fourthcommandment was based, may be of universal application in earth and in heaven, in time oreternity. But just which day that shall be, is a matter of minor consequence to bedetermined by the circumstances in the case, which may and must differ at different timesand different places. To the Jewish people it certainly was the seventh day, or Saturday,and no other day would have met the commandment. All the rigorous limitations andexactions of the Sabbath day, as under the Jewish law, could be carried out by a smallpeople in a limited territory where the church bore rule. A particular day, the seventh,Deut. 5:12-13; definite hours, sunset to sunset, Lev. 23:32; no fires in all their houses,Ex. 35:3; stoning to death for picking up a stick, Num. 15:32-36 - this was the Jewishlaw. But we are not Jews nor under the Jewish law. Under the new dispensation of thegospel, other circumstances have arisen plainly and grandly marking another day as the allimportant day in Christian memory - the resurrection day. When the gospel was to go to allnations, to all climates, and around the earth, the Christian rest day was necessarily andwisely left upon a far different basis.
Where Shall We Begin the Day?
If a man's salvation depends upon keeping the same day to a minute that God kept atcreation, then it is infinitely important that we know exactly to a rod where his daybegan so as to begin ours there too. But the Lord has not said a word about it nor giventhe least clue as to where to begin the day. Nor do Sabbatarians KNOW anything about it,but have to guess at the whole thing. The day is now generally reckoned to begin at acertain line 180 degrees west from Greenwich, England. It runs north and south through thePacific Ocean about 4,000 miles west of America. I wrote Prof. E.E. Holden of LickObservatory asking, "1. Have we the date when the day line was established there? 2.Who did it, and why? 3. When? 4. Has it been reckoned from other places thanGreenwich?"
He answered: "1. There was no one date. 2. No one. For convenience. 3. During thelast hundred years. 4. Yes. Canary Islands, Tenereffe, Ferro, Paris, Berlin, Jerusalem,Washington, etc."
So we see: 1. It is only within the last hundred years that the day line has been fixedwhere it is now. 2. This was done merely for convenience, not because there was anythingin nature requiring it. 3. At different times the day line has been counted from at leastseven different places, from Jerusalem in the east to Washington in the west, about 8,000miles difference, or one-third the way around the earth. Hence, the beginning of theseventh day has varied that much at different dates. 4. In another century it may bechanged again. 5. There is just as much authority for one place as the other, and nodivine authority for one place as the other, and no divine authority for either, as it isall man's work and done at hap-hazard. 6. Hence, so far as duty to God is concerned, anynation, church or society is at liberty to begin the day wherever they please. One placewill be just as apt to be in harmony with God's day line as another.
Sabbatarians in America can fix their day line in the Atlantic instead of in thePacific and then our Sunday will be Saturday, and they will be all right and convert anation in a day! Could any one prove that this would not be in harmony with Hod's day lineat creation? Certainly not. It would be just as apt to be right as the present day line.Then why not do it? Indeed, this is exactly parallel to what Seventh-day Adventists havedone within the past few years in the case of a whole colony in the Pacific Ocean.Pitcairn Island, in the Pacific, was settled one hundred years ago by persons who broughttheir reckoning eastward from Asia. But it happens to be on the American side of thepresent day line; hence their Sunday was our Saturday, and they all kept it one hundredyears as Sunday. According to Adventists, this was an awful thing, for Sunday is thePope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast. So, a few years ago, Adventists went there andconverted them all to keeping Saturday. How? They simply induced them to change theirreckoning of the day line a few miles and lo! their Sunday was Saturday! Now they are allpious Sabbath- keepers while before they were all keeping Sunday, the mark of the beast!And yet they are keeping exactly the same day they always kept! If this is nothair-splitting, tell me what is. It illustrates the childishness of the whole Sabbatarianbusiness. Now let the Adventists just shift their day line a little further east toinclude America and they can keep our day with us.
If the day began in the traditional place where Eden is said to have been located, thenthe day line would be away west of the present location some 7,000 miles, west even ofAustralia; and then the Seventh-day people in Australia are not keeping the Sabbath atall. In that case the Sunday-keepers of New Zealand and Australia are now actually keepingthe original seventh day, and Sabbatarians there are keeping the sixth day! Do they know,and can they prove, that this is not so? No; they simply have to take the reckoning justas it happened to be, right or wrong, without knowing which it is. And yet, at greatexpense, they have sent missionaries there to convert the people over to keep another day,when actually they do not know but what those people are really keeping the seventh day,and they themselves are wrong! None, not even themselves, pretend to know where God beganto reckon that day; yet they draw the line to a hair, and say that all will be damned whodo not toe that line and count from that spot! Does the salvation of a man's soul dependupon such mathematical niceties and such uncertainties as these? If it does, we may welldespair of heaven.
The very fact that God has never revealed just where the true day line is, or where theseventh day began, shows that it is of no consequence for us to know. Alaska, thenorthwest point of America, was settled by Russians ages ago, before the present day lineexisted. Of course they brought their reckoning with them and hence their Sunday was onSaturday. In 1867 we bought Alaska and it became a part of the United States. The day wetook possession our laws changed their Sunday to Saturday, all by human authority. Didthat change the Edenic Sabbath for that people? Again, in going around the earth one waywe lose a day and going the other way we gain a day. Hence, in one case we must add a dayand in the other drop a day. All have to do this to keep in harmony with the world.Adventists do this, but by what authority, and where? The Bible says keep the seventh dayand from sunset to sunset. Ex. 20:8-11; Lev. 23:32. Let two Adventists start from Chicago,one going east, the other west, around the earth. Each keeps carefully the seventh day asthe sun sets. When they meet again at Chicago they will be two days apart! One will bekeeping Sunday and the other Friday. How do they manage it? Each gives up his seventh dayand both take that of the world. So they have a worldly day after all!
Look at the difficulty in crossing this supposed day line in the Pacific Ocean. I havepersonally conversed with Sabbatarians who have crossed this line both ways, east andwest. Going west, a day is ADDED, going east it is DROPPED and this is done at NOON of theday which finds them nearest the supposed line. On the vessel, a man going west sits downto dinner 11:50 A.M. Friday. While he is eating the time is changed and he rises fromdinner Saturday noon! Then he has only six hours of Sabbath till sunset; or coming east,he sits down to dinner Saturday noon and rises from dinner Friday noon! He has kepteighteen hours Sabbath; then it is gone in a second at high noon, and he has six hours towork till sunset. Now he must begin Sabbath once more and keep it over again - twenty-fourhours! In one case he only kept six hours Sabbath, and in the other case he kept forty-twohours!
These stubborn facts demonstrate the utter absurdity of the Sabbatarian view. Theyclaim that these things do not bother them any; but I know that they do, and badly, too.They have written much on it, devised all sorts of diagrams, illustrations and argumentsto meet the difficulty; but none are satisfactory, even to themselves. Hence new methodsare constantly being devised to dodge the difficulty. The latest discovery is that adoptedby the Seventh-day Adventist ministers of the New York conference. It is that the earth isabsolutely FLAT and STATIONARY, with sun, moon and stars much smaller than the earth andrevolving around it! "The sun, he do move," the old darkey said, and they say,Amen.
The Sabbath at the North Pole
Now test the definite Seventh-day theory in the frozen regions of the north. The daymust be kept from sunset to sunset. Lev. 23:32. But in the winter there are months whenthe sun is not seen there at all, so they have no sunset. And again, in summer there aremonths when the sun is above the horizon all the time, when there is no sunset. Here thetheory breaks down entirely, and the day must be reckoned by artificial means. They cankeep one-seventh of the time, and that is absolutely all that can be done. Seventh-dayAdventists have argued that there was no real difficulty here; it was all imaginary. Theytry to bluff it off with a laugh; but that does not answer the facts. I know that theythemselves have got into serious trouble right here. So great was their difficulty, evenin northern Sweden and Norway, that in 1886 it was seriously discussed as to whether theymust not change and reckon the day not from sunset as now, but from 6 P.M. Mrs. White andson were there and favored the change. I was on a committee of the General Conference toinvestigate the matter. We decided against the change and it was abandoned. What endlessand needless difficulties people get themselves into trying to keep a law which was onlydesigned for the Jews in a limited locality. How contrary to the freedom and simplicity ofthe gospel!
In reply to all these facts, which cannot be denied, Seventh-day people say: Is not thefirst day of the week, or Sunday, just as definite a day as the seventh day, or Saturday?Is it not just as difficult to keep Sunday all around the world as it is to keep Saturday?Do you not claim that you should keep the first day in honor of the resurrection? Theanswer to these questions is not hard to give. The essential idea is that we should devoteone day in seven to religious duties. To secure the highest good, all should unite inobserving the same day. From the days of the apostles the Christian church has, with oneconsent, observed the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, the first day of the week, orSunday. But it is not claimed that it is absolutely essential that exactly the sameminutes and hours, or even the same definite day, must be kept anyway and under allcircumstances, whether or no. That would be legalism, and contrary to the very nature andfreedom of the gospel. Suppose the Jewish day on which Jesus arose was reckoned fromsunset to sunset, as doubtless it was, must we also reckon it that way? As it is foundmore convenient to reckon the day from midnight to midnight, and as all are united indoing so, it is for the best interests of religion to conform to this custom. If, intraveling around the world, men should mistake their longitude, as in case of Alaska andPitcairn's Island, and call Saturday Sunday, it is not material. They had better all uniteon that than to quarrel over it.
If, in the long period of darkness at the north pole, men should lose the time, andthen select some other period than that which exactly corresponds to our Sunday, hour forhour, the difference would not be material. Or, if in locating the day line from which toreckon the beginning of the day, that line had happened to be located 5,000 miles furthereast or 10,000 further west, it would not have made a particle of difference. And as towhether we now begin the day just where God did in Eden or not, is a matter of noconsequence. And whether our brethren in China rest at the same time we do or not, is oflittle account. And whether the Sabbath of Jupiter and Mars and Neptune, and of heavenitself, comes when ours does or not, is of little interest to us. It will be time enoughto settle that matter when we go to live with them. So, while traveling around the earth,east or west, or crossing the day line, whether or not we are able to keep exactly thesame time, or even exactly one- seventh part of time to a minute, is of little importance.We do the best we can under the circumstances, and conform to the time as reckoned bythose where we go. To "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," is not a goodpractice in any cause. But with the strict Sabbatarian all this is entirely different. Acertain day, beginning at precisely such a line to a hair, and at such a minute to asecond, is holy time. If you don't hit that exact time just right, you might as well keepno day at all! That may do for Judaism, but it certainly is not according to the spiritand freedom of the gospel.
I believe this is a fair statement of the position held by the great body of theintelligent observers of Sunday. It harmonizes exactly with the statement of our Savior,that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27. Manand his highest good are first; the Sabbath is secondary and subservient to these.Practically, the Sabbatarian exactly reverses this order. The Sabbath is the all-importantthing, a rigid, iron rule, unbending and inflexible. Man and his necessities and his goodare of little or no account in comparison with the supremely great duty to keep theSabbath. "Man was made for the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath for man," would muchbetter express their idea of the relative importance of the two. It is well for the peopleand the world that such pharisaical ideas have found few advocates in the church ofChrist.
Lost Time
The how do Sabbatarians know that our Saturday is the exact seventh day from creationdown? Says Rev. J.H. Potts, D.D., editor of the Michigan (Methodist) Christian Advocate:"That in selecting the Jewish Sabbath day, Moses selected the regular successiveseventh day of human time from Adam down cannot be proved by any authority, human ordivine." The Lord's Day our Sabbath, page 12. This is endorsed by Bishop Harris andseveral other eminent divines. So Rev. Geo. Elliott, in his "Abiding Sabbath,"says: "There is no possible means of fixing the day of the original Sabbath." Sosay all unbiased writers.
During the long period before the flood; during the patriarchal age when they had norecords; during their slavery in Egypt when even traditional knowledge was largely lost;during the anarchy under the judges, and all down the ages since, are they sure that nomistake has been made, not even of one day? Of course they are not. The only possible waythey can tell is by human tradition. In answer to my inquiry upon the point, Rabbi IsaacM. Wise, Cincinnati, O., the most learned Jew of the land, wrote me: "The JewishSabbath is, in point of the particular time, a matter of tradition." So after all,their Sabbath-keeping rests upon tradition of men, the very thing Adventists condemn.
But it is said that if the day had been lost, God knew which it was and would havepointed it out at the giving of the manna. Or if it had been lost before Christ's time, hewould have known it and would have corrected them. But this assumes the very thing to beproved, viz.: that God cares as much about special hours and minutes as they do. This theycan not prove. Evidently from the slight importance which he attached to keeping theJewish Sabbath Jesus would have kept any day which he found observed by the nation.
Almost universally Christians regard Sunday as a sacred day. Do they offer for this anyadequate reasons? Yes, indeed, and those which have been satisfactory to all the best andablest Christians the church has ever had. After keeping the seventh day and extensivelyadvocating it for over a quarter of a century, I became satisfied that it was an error,and that the blessing of God did not go with the keeping of it. Like thousands of others,when I embraced the Seventh-day Sabbath I thought the argument was all on one side, soplain that one hour's reading ought to settle it, so clear that no man could reject theSabbath and be honest. The only marvel to me was that everybody did not see and embraceit.
But after keeping it twenty-eight years; after having persuaded more than a thousandothers to keep it; after having read my Bible through, verse by verse, more than twentytimes; after having scrutinized, to the very best of my ability, every text, line and wordin the Bible having the remotest bearing upon the Sabbath question; after having looked upall these, both in the original and in many translations; after having searched inlexicons, concordances, commentaries and dictionaries; after having read armfuls of bookson both sides of the question; after having read every line in all the early churchfathers upon this point; and having written several works in favor of the Seventh-day,which were satisfactory to my brethren; after having debated the question for more than adozen times; after seeing the fruits of keeping it, and weighing all the evidence in thefear of God, I am fully settled in my own mind and conscience that the evidence is againstthe keeping of the Seventh-day.
Those who observe Sunday say that they do it in honor of the resurrection of Christupon that day, and that this practice was derived from the apostles and has been continuedin the church ever since. Let us see. "The Lord's Day" is a term now commonlyapplied to the first day of the week in honor of the Lord's resurrection on that day.Thus: "We believe the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the Lord'sday." Baptist Church Directory, page 171. Excepting a few Sabbatarians of late date,all christendom, numbering four hundred and sixteen million people, of all sects and allnations, regard Sunday as a sacred day and agree in applying the term "Lord'sDay" to Sunday. So every dictionary, lexicon and cyclopedia applies that term to thefirst day. Here is a grand, undeniable fact of today. When did this stream begin? Let ustrace it up to its head through all the centuries.
18th century, A.D. 1760. Rev A.H. Lewis, D.D., Seventh-day Baptist, is the author of"Critical History of Sunday Legislation." From page 181 I quote: "Theprofanation of the Lord's Day is highly offensive to Almighty God." Laws ofMassachusetts, A.D. 1760.
17th century, A.D. 1676. The Laws of Charles II of England say: "For the betterobservation and keeping holy the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, be it enacted,"etc. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 108.
16th century, A.D. 1536. Going back over 300 years ago to the reformers, we find allChristians calling Sunday the "Lord's Day." Calvin, voicing the universalsentiment of his time, says: "The ancients have, not without sufficient reason,substituted what we call the Lord's Day in the room of the Sabbath." Calvin'sInstitute, Book 2, chapter VIII, section 34. Luther, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer,Tyndale, etc., likewise speak of the Lord's Day as the first day of the week. Here isanother great fact as to the Lord's Day. It was in existence and universally observed 300years ago.
15th century, A.D. 1409. "He that playeth at unlawful games on Sundays...shall besix days imprisoned." Statute of Henry IV of England. Critical History of SundayLegislation, page 90.
14th century, A.D. 1359. "It is provided by sanctions of law and canon that allLord's Days be venerably observed." Archbishop of Canterbury. Critical History ofSunday Legislation, page 82.
13th century, A.D. 1281. "The obligation to observe the legal Sabbath according tothe form of the Old Testament is at an end...to which in the New Testament hath succeededthe custom of spending the Lord's Day...in the worship of God." Archbishop ofCanterbury. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 81.
12th century, A.D. 1174. "We do ordain that these days following be exempt fromlabor:...All Sundays in the year," etc. Emperor of Constantinople. History of Sabbathand Sunday, page 191.
11th century, A.D. 1025. "Sunday marketing we also strictly forbid." Laws ofDenmark. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 77.
10th century, A.D. 975. "Sunday is very solemnly to be reverenced." SaxonLaws. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 75.
9th century, A.D. 813. "All Lord's Days shall be observed with all due venerationand all servile work shall be abstained from." Council of Mayence.
8th century. In the year 747, an English council said: "It is ordered that theLord's Day be celebrated with due veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship ofGod." Andrew's History of the Sabbath, page 377.
7th century, A.D. 695. "If a slave work on Sunday by his lord's command, let himbe free." Saxon Laws. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 71.
6th century, A.D. 578. "On the Lord's Day it is not permitted to yoke oxen or toperform any other work except for appointed reasons." Council of Auxerre.
5th century. Passing back to about A.D. 450, we come to the history of the churchwritten by Sozomen. In book 2, Chapter VIII, page 22, of Constantine, he says: "Hehonored the Lord's Day, because on it he arose from the dead." This shows what wasmeant by Lord's Day in those early times.
Stepping back once more to about A.D. 400, we reach the great theologian of the earlychurch, St. Augustine. He says: "The day now known as the Lord's Day, the eighth,namely, which is also the first day of the week." Letters of St. Augustine, letter55, Chapter XIII. He says the first day of the week was known as the Lord's Day in histimes.
4th century. In A.D. 386, the Emperor of Rome decreed as follows: "On the day ofthe sun, properly called the Lord's Day, by our ancestors, let there be a cessation oflawsuits, business, and indictments." Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page36. Even the civil law at that early date recognized Sunday as the Lord's Day.
Going back again to the era of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor, wereach Eusebius, the "Father of Church History," A.D. 324. He constantly andfamiliarly uses the term "Lord's Day" for the first day of the week. Onepassage: "They (the Jewish Christians) also observe the Sabbath, and other disciplineof the Jews, just like them; but, on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lord's Daysvery much like us in commemoration of his resurrection." Eccl. History, book 3,Chapter XXVII. Here Lord's Day is distinguished from the Jewish Sabbath, and is said to bekept on account of the resurrection.
This brings us to the era of the Early Christian Fathers. I quote them as translated inthe "Ante-Nicene Christian Library."
A.D. 306. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt: "But the Lord's Day we celebrateas a day of joy, because on it, he rose again." Canon 15.
3rd century, A.D. 270. Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in Asia Minor: "Our regardfor the Lord's resurrection which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrateit." Chapter X.
About A.D. 250. The Apostolic Constitution: "On the day of our Lord'sresurrection, which is the Lord's Day, meet more diligently." Book 2, sec. 7.
A.D. 250, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Africa: "The eighth day, that is, thefirst day after the Sabbath and the Lord's Day." Epistle 58, section 4.
A.D. 200. Tertullian in Africa: "We solemnize the day after Saturday incontradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath." Apology, Chapter XVI."We however, just as we have received, only on the day of the Lord's resurrection,ought to guard not only against kneeling, but even posture and office of solicitude,deferring even our business." On Prayer, Chapter XXIII.
2nd century, A.D. 194. Clement of Alexandria, Egypt: "He, in fulfillment of theprecept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's Day, when he abandons an evildisposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection inhimself." Book 7, Chapter XII.
A.D. 180. Bardesanes, Edessa, Asia: "On one day the first of the week, we assembleourselves together." Book of the Laws of Countries.
A.D. 140. Justin Martyr: "But Sunday is the day which we all hold our commonassembly, because Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose from the dead."Apology, Chapter LXVII.
A.D. 120. Barnabas. "We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on whichJesus rose again from the dead." Chapter XVII.
A.D. 96. St. John on Patmos: "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day." Rev.1:10.
A.D. 60. Luke, Asia Minor: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciplescame together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts 20:7.
Thus we have traced the Lord's Day or Sunday as a sacred day among Christians from ourtime back through all the centuries up to the New Testament itself.
Who can fail to see that the "Lord's Day" and the "first day of theweek" are spoken of in the same manner both by the apostles and down through all thefathers and reformers to our day? To every unbiased mind the evidence must be conclusivethat the Lord's Day of Rev. 1:10, written A.D. 96, is the resurrection day the same as itis in every instance where it is used by all the Christian fathers immediately followingJohn. Mark this fact: IN NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE EITHER IN THE BIBLE OR IN ALL HISTORY cana passage be found where the term the LORD'S DAY IS APPLIED TO the seventh day, the JEWISHSABBATH. This fact should be and is decisive as to the meaning in Rev. 1:10. EvenSabbatarians themselves do not call the seventh day the Lord's Day, but always say"Sabbath day."
Testimony of Lexicons and Cyclopedias
Webster: "Sunday, the first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath; the Lord'sDay."
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible: "Lord's Day. The first day of the week, orSunday, of every age of the church."
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia: "Lord's Day, the oldest and best designation of theChristian Sabbath, first used by St. John." Rev. 1:10.
Buck's Theological Dictionary, article Sabbath. "It (the first day of the week) iscalled the Lord's Day." Rev 1:10.
Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia: "Lord's Day, a name for the first day of theweek, derived from Rev. 1:10"
The Greek words rendered "Lord's Day," [Rev. 1:10] and Kuriake hemera.Kuriake, the adjective, is from the noun kurious, and is thus defined:
"Kuriakos" - Of, or pertaining to the Lord, i.e., the Messiah; the Lord's. 1Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10." Greenfield.
"Kuriakos - Pertaining to the Lord, to the Lord Jesus Christ: e.g., kuriakosdeipnon, the Lord's supper. [1 Cor. 11:20;] kuriake hemera, the Lord's Day [Rev.1:10]." Robinson.
"Kurikos - Of, belonging to, concerning a lord or master, especially belonging tothe Lord (Christ); hence kuriake hemera, the Lord's Day." Liddell & Scott.
"This is the usual name of Sunday with the subsequent Greek fathers."Parkhurst.
"Kuriakos - Pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ; the Lord [1 Cor. 11:20; Rev.1:10."] Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon.
So we might go through all the lexicons, finding the same definitions in all. Not asingle one refers this term to God the Father, but without an exception all refer it tothe Lord Jesus. There must be some good reason for this universal agreement.
So the commentators. "The Lord's Day. The first day of the week." Dr. Clarkon Rev. 1:10.
"On the Lord's Day, which can be meant of no other than the day on which the LordJesus arose from the dead, even the first day of the week." Scott on Rev. 1:10.
Dr. Barnes says: "This was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus, for (a)that is the natural meaning of the word Lord as used in the New Testament; and (b) if theJewish Sabbath was intended to be designated, the word Sabbath would have been used."
Prof. Hacket, in his comments on Acts 1:24, says: "Kuriakos, when taken absolutelyin the New Testament, refers generally to Christ."
"Lord's Day, namely, the first day of the week." Burkett's Notes on the N.T.
"The Lord's Days, the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week." EclecticCommentary on Rev. 1:10.
"The Lord's Day. The first day of the week, commemorating the Lord'sresurrection." Family Bible with notes, on Rev. 1:10. Go through the whole list ofcommentaries, and all say the same thing. Have they no ground for this? Yes, good enoughto be conclusive.
1. In all the Bible, the seventh day is never once called the Lord's Day.
2. "The Sabbath" was the term invariably used for the Jewish seventh day.John himself always used that term when speaking of the seventh day. See John5:9,10,16,18; 7:22,23; 9:14,16; 19:31. Had he meant that day in Rev. 1:10, he certainlywould have said "Sabbath Day," not Lord's Day.
3. The Greek word kuriakos, is a new word originating in the New Testament and foundonly in one other place, 1 Cor. 11:20, "the Lord's supper." Beyond dispute ithere applies to the Lord Jesus. "The adjective kuriake was 'formed by the apostlesthemselves.' [Winer, N.T. Gram., page 226.] To the same effect testify Liddell and Scott.Of the mode of dealing with words in their lexicons, they say: 'We have always sought togive the earliest authority for its use first. Then, if no change was introduced by laterwriters, we have left it with that early authority alone.' (Pref. page 20) When we turn tothe word kuriakos, they give as their first citation, and therefore, as its earliestauthority, the New Testament. The question now arises why form a new word to express asacred institution, if the institution itself be not new? Winer says: 'Entirely new wordsand phrases were constructed mainly by composition, and for the most part to meet somesensible want.' (Gram. page 25) What conceivable sensible want respecting the Sabbath didthe Old Testament leave unexpressed? Clearly the new want arose from a new institution.This position receives additional strength from the fact that the only other New Testamentuse of kuriakos is found in 1 Cor. 11:20, designating 'the Lord's supper,' which iscertainly a new institution." Peter Vogel in debate with Waggoner, page 110. This isa strong point and should be decisive.
4. As the gospel was a new institution, it necessitated the use of new terms. So wehave "Christians," Acts 11:26, as the new name for God's people;"apostles," "evangelists," and "deacons" as the officers ofthe new church; "baptism" as the initiatory rite into the church, the"Lord's supper," 1 Cor 11:20, and the "Lord's Day," as institutions ofthat church. Rev. 1:10. The new relations as originated by the gospel could not beexpressed by the old terms of the law; hence new words and new terms had to be used. For1,500 years "Sabbath" had been the established name of the weekly rest day ofthe law and was still used by all for the seventh day. Hence if Christians were to have anew weekly rest day commemorating gospel facts, they must find a new term for it. Hence wehave "Lord's Day."
There is a good reason why in the gospel the "Lord's Day" is Christ's day.Officially and emphatically he is the one Lord in this dispensation.
The term Lord applies to Christ about four hundred and fifty times in the NewTestament. Hence in the gospel all things are commonly spoken of as belonging to Jesus as,"the disciples of the Lord," etc. Acts 9:1. Now read together "The Lord'sbody," 1 Cor. 11:29, "this cup of the Lord," "blood of the Lord,"verse 27, "Lord's death," verse 26, "the Lord's table," 1 Cor. 10:21."The Lord's supper," 1 Cor. 11:20; "the Lord's Day," Rev. 1:10. Do notall refer to the same Lord? Of course they do, and who can fail to admit it? Under theofficial jurisdiction of Jesus the Lord, come of necessity all the institutions nowobligatory. Hence Lord's Day is Christ's Day, and that is the way it is always used in theearly fathers as we have seen.
Objections answered: The seventh day is called the "Sabbath of the Lord," Ex.20:10; "my holy day," Isa. 58:13; and Jesus says he was "Lord of theSabbath day," Mark 2:28. Isn't that the Lord's Day? No; for: 1) The word Sabbath isused in each of these three texts but is not in Rev. 1:10. 2) All three texts were spokenbefore the cross and under the law, but Rev. 1:10, is under the gospel. 3) The JewishSabbath was abolished at the cross, Col. 2:16; Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10, sixty years beforeJohn wrote on Patmos, hence that could not have been the Lord's day when John wrote. 5)The fact that the term "Lord's day" immediately after the time of John, wheneverused by the early church, was always applied to Sunday, and never to the Sabbath, settlesits meaning in Rev. 1:10.
But it is objected that John and all the other evangelists in the gospels call Sundaysimply "the first day of the week," instead of the Lord's day. Hence if John, inRev. 1:10, had meant that day he would have said "the first day of the week," ashe did in the gospel. The answer is easy. Jesus predicted that he would be put to deathand rise the third day. Each evangelist is careful to show that the prediction wasfulfilled. Hence they were particular to give the names of those three days as they werecalled by Jews; that is, "preparation day," "Sabbath day," and"first day of the week." This is a sufficient answer. Moreover, it is probablethat the resurrection day was not immediately called the Lord's day; but by the time Johnwrote the Revelation, A.D. 96, it had come to be the well known name for that day, as wehave shown.
Why is it Fitting that the First Day of the Week Should be the Memorial Day of theGospel
Why do people keep any day? Always because of what occurred on that day. Why were theSabbath, the passover, and others days kept? Because of what occurred on those days. Whydo we observe the 4th of July, Christmas, the days of our birth, marriage, etc? It isimportant, then to inquire if anything occurred on Sunday to make it worthy of beingobserved by Christians.
Of all things used to commemorate past events, a memorial day is the best. A monument,a statue, a college, and the like are local and only seen by the few; but a day comes toall and regularly. Hence with what enthusiasm every nation celebrates its memorial days,as our own 4th of July. So religion has consecrated memorial days, as the Sabbath, thePassover, Pentecost, and others of the Jewish age. And shall the grandest of allinstitutions, the gospel, have no memorial day? If so it would be the one only exceptionamong all the religions of the world and a great loss to the church. If the materialcreation merited a memorial day, how much more the spiritual redemption of the race?
But why theorize? It is the grandest and best known fact in all the earth today thatthe Christian church has a memorial day, the day of the Lord's resurrection, the Lord'sday. It is regularly observed in every nation under Heaven. We have already shown how thisday has always from the very days of the apostles, been regarded as a memorial day. Itonly remains to inquire, if it was the one day best adapted to this purpose. Study thelife of Jesus, scan every noted day in it, in the year, in the month, in the week, and itmust be admitted by all that no other than the resurrection day could be thought of for amoment. Think over the days of the week. How meager are the events of any other daycompared with those of the resurrection day. Monday what? Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday hisbetrayal; Friday his death; Saturday in the grave. Would we select any of these days as amemorial day for a rejoicing church? Surely not.
"On the Jewish Sabbath the Saviour lay under the power of death. It was to hisdisciples a day of restlessness and gloom. The remembrance of that day would always be tothem grievous. The thought of the agony, the cross, the bitter cry, the expiring groan,and the mournful sepulcher could only create a feeling of sorrow. Forevermore the JewishSabbath day was despoiled of its gladness to the Christian heart." The Lord's Day OurSabbath, page 21.
It was the resurrection day on which every thing turned. Jesus might have lived thepure life he did, might have wrought all the miracles he did, might have died on the crossas he did, might have been buried as he was, yet all this would not have saved a soul ifhe had not risen from the dead. "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye areyet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 1Cor. 15:17-18. The resurrection completed the work which made Jesus the Saviour of theworld. Jesus himself when asked for the evidence of his authority, pointed to theresurrection on the third day as the proof of it. John 2:18-21; Matt 12:38- 40; 16:21.This test of his divinity was well known to all, for the Pharisees said to Pilate,"Sir, we remember what that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days Iwill rise again." Matt 27:63.
When Jesus died, the hope of his disciples was buried with him, Luke 24:17,21, and theholy women were heartbroken. But the wicked Jews rejoiced and Satan triumphed while theangels mourned. If ever the devil had hope it was while Jesus was dead during that Sabbathday. But as Sunday begins to dawn, a mighty angel like lightening descends, the earthquakes, the grave opens and Christ arises a conqueror over Death, Hell and the Grave. Matt28:1-4. Satan's last hope is gone; the wicked Jews are dismayed; the holy women are glad;the hope of a world is secured; the sufferings and humiliation of the Son of God areended; and he walks forth the Almighty Saviour, the Lord of all. Never such a morningdawned on this lost world before. No wonder it became the memorial day of the church. Itwas impossible to be otherwise.
Paul says that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according tothe Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead," Rom. 1:4. It was thisthat proved his divinity. So that there will be a day of Judgment God "hath givenassurance unto all men, in that he hath raised them from the dead." Acts 17:31. 1. OnSunday Jesus rose from the dead. Mark 16:9. 2. On this day he first appeared to hisdisciples. 3. On this day he met them at different places and repeatedly. Mark 16:9-11;Matt 28:8-10; Luke 24:34; Mark 16:12-13; John 20:19-23. 4. On this day Jesus blessed them.John 20:19. 5. On this day he imparted to them the gift of the Holy Ghost. John 20:22. 6.Here he first commissioned them to preach the gospel to all the world. John 20:21; withMark 16:9-15. 7. Here he gave his apostles authority to legislate for and guide hischurch. John 20:23. 8. Peter says God "hath begotten us again unto a lovely hope bythe resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Peter 1:3. 9. On this day Jesusascended to his father, was seated at his right hand and made head over all. John 20:17;Eph. 1:20. 10. On that day many of the dead saints arose from the grave. Matt. 27:52-53.11. Here this day became the day of joy and rejoicing to the disciples. "Then werethe disciples glad when they saw the Lord." John 20:20. "While they yet believednot for joy." Luke 24:41. 12. On that day the gospel of a risen Christ was firstpreached, saying: "The lord is risen indeed." Luke 24:34 13. On that SundayJesus himself set the example of preaching the gospel of his resurrection by explainingall the scriptures on that subject and by opening the minds of the disciples to understandit. "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand theScriptures." Luke 24:27,45 14. Finally on this day the purchase of our redemption wascompleted.
With all these thrilling events of gospel facts crowded into that one resurrection day,making it memorable above all days in the history of the world, how could it but becomethe great day in the memory of the church? The facts of that one day became the theme ofthe church ever since. The great battle between the apostles and the unbelieving Jews wasconcerning the events of that day; did Jesus rise, or did he not? The Jews "gavelarge money" to disprove it, Matt. 28:12, while the apostles built the church andstaked their lives upon it. Thus in God's own providence, the Jewish Sabbath was throwninto the shade, while all the hopes and thoughts and arguments and songs of the new churchwere necessarily turned to another day, the resurrection day.
Memorable day, one that should stir the heart of every Christian and move sinners torepentance as indeed it has done every week from that day on. "The Lord's Day,"how appropriate the title for that grand day on which our Lord triumphed over all and laiddeep and secure the foundation of the Christian church. Most appropriately, then, has itbecome the one memorial day of the gospel, the day of gladness and rejoicing. Shall we,then, call it a pagan day? the pope's day? the mark of the beast? a day hateful to God andan abomination to Christ? God forbid. It was said of Jesus, "What evil hath hedone?" So we ask, "What evil has the observance of the Lord's Day everdone?" What man, church, or nation, has ever been made worse by it? Nay, verily, thisis not its character nor its record.
The Eighth Day of John 20:26
I have become satisfied myself that the meeting of Christ with his disciples"after eight days," John 20:26, was on Sunday. He had met with them the previousSunday evening. Verse 19. Here "after eight days" he meets them again.Sabbatarians count up and satisfy themselves that this occurred on Monday or Tuesday. Butcompare this with the expression "after three days." The number of the day afterhis death on which Christ was to rise is given in three ways. 1. "In threedays," Matt. 26:61; 27:40. 2. "The third day," Matt. 16:21; 20:19. 3."After three days," Mark 8:31. All these expressions mean the same. He diedFriday and rose Sunday; hence Sunday was "three days," "the third day"and "after three days" in their common way of speaking. In the same way,"In eight days," "on the eighth day" and "after eight days"would all be the same, that is the next Sunday, or eighth day.
What strengthens this position is the well known fact that the term, "the eighthday," became a common term for the resurrection day among all the early Christianfathers. Thus Eld. Andrews, the seventh-day historian, writing of Dionysius, A.D. 170,says of Sunday, "Every writer who precedes Dionysius calls it first day of the week,'eighth day,' or Sunday." Testimony of the Fathers, page 52. Thus Barnabas, A.D. 120says: "We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also, on which Jesus roseagain from the dead." Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter XV. Justin Martyr, A.D. 140 says:"The first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all days, is called however,the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains thefirst." Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLI. And Cyprian, A.D. 250, says "theeighth, that is the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day." Epistle 58,Section 4. Where did the early church get the idea that the eighth day was the Lord's day,if not from the apostles? Evidently, then, the meeting in John 20:26, was on Sunday. Theonly visits of Jesus with his disciples which the Holy Spirit saw fit to date carefullyare those occurring on Sunday.
Pentecost, Acts 2
That the day of Pentecost, Acts 2, fell on Sunday has been believed and maintained byChristians in all ages. 1. The time of the Pentecost was thus stated: "Ye shall countunto you from the morrow after the Sabbath from the day that ye brought the sheaf of thewave offering, seven Sabbaths shall be complete, even unto the morrow after the seventhSabbath shall ye number fifty days." Lev. 23:15,16. The day after the seventh Sabbathwould certainly be the first day of the week.
2. The Karaite Jews held that Pentecost according to the law must always be on Sunday.
3. 'Pentecost' means 'fiftieth,' the fiftieth day after the first Sabbath where theybegan to count, hence it must fall on the first day of the week.
4. Dr. Scott's commentary says: "As Jesus arose on the first day of the week, sothe Holy Spirit descended on the same, seven weeks, or on the fiftieth dayafterwards." On Acts 2:1.
5. So plain is the point that even the Seventh-day Adventists themselves have admittedit. Thus Elder U. Smith: "The sheaf of the first fruits was waved on the sixteenthday of the first month. This met its antitype in the resurrection of our Lord, the firstfruits of them that slept, the sixteenth of the first month.... The feast of weeks, orPentecost, occurred on the fiftieth day from the offering of the first fruits. Theantitype of this feast, the Pentecost of Acts 2, was fulfilled on that very day, fiftydays from the resurrection of Christ, in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon thedisciples." The Sanctuary, page 283, 284. Fifty days from the resurrection of Christwould be on the first day of the week. This is just what God directed; it was to be on themorrow after the seventh Sabbath and on the fiftieth day. Lev. 23:15,16.
6. So the Eclectic Commentary: "It happened on the first day of the week." OnActs 2.
7. "Pentecost in that year must have fallen on the first day of the week."The Bible Commentary on Acts 2.
8. "That the day of Pentecost fell on Sunday is undeniable, because theresurrection of Christ was upon a Sunday, and Pentecost was the fiftieth day from theresurrection." Bramhall's Works, V. 51.
9. "It consequently occurred in the year in which Christ died on the first day ofthe week, or our Sunday." Lange on Acts 2:1.
10. "The Pentecost day was Sunday." Wheadon's Commentary on Acts 2:1.
Notice now the importance of that day. Jesus told the disciples to tarry in Jerusalemtill endued with power from on high. Luke 24:49. They must begin their preaching there.Verse 47. On that Pentecost they were to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:5. In thelast days of Judah and Jerusalem the law was to go forth out of Zion and the word of theLord from Jerusalem while all nations were gathered to it. Isa. 2:1-4. All this wasfulfilled on Pentecost. The Holy Ghost came on the disciples in mighty power; then theybegan preaching the gospel and thousands were converted. This was only the first fruits ofwhat has occurred, in fact, on succeeding Sundays ever since. It has been the great day ofpower and of conversions in the church from that day on. Thus God signally honored Sundayat the very opening of the gospel as he has continued to do ever since.
Acts 20:6,7
All agree that the disciples had some regular day for meetings. Paul said: "Notforsaking the assembling of ourselves together." Heb. 10:25. This implies a regulartime and a stated place for meetings. Reproving them for making the Lord's supper a feast,Paul says: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat theLord's supper," but rather to feast, 1 Cor. 11:20. This indicates that they had aplace and a time to come together for the supper. There is not the slightest evidence thatthe Christians ever had the Lord's supper or held distinctively Christian worship on theJewish Sabbath. In every case where meetings on the Sabbath are mentioned it is inconnection with the regular Jewish worship. There is no record that Christians ever metalone for worship on that day. They certainly could not have had the Lord's supper in thesynagogues on the Sabbath with the Jews. Nor is there the least intimation that it wasever tried. They must, therefore, have met by themselves in some other place than thesynagogue and on some other day. Turning to Acts 20:6,7, we read: "And we sailed awayfrom Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in fivedays; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciplescame together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on themorrow."
Here they met by themselves, and in an upper room, for the Lord's supper. The time isthe first day of the week. The incidental manner in which it is mentioned shows that whatthey did was a well understood custom among them - "WHEN they came together to breakbread upon the first day of the week." Three things are mentioned: 1) They cametogether. It is mentioned as though all knew it was common for them to do this. 2) Tobreak bread. This again is stated as though all knew that this, too, was a common practicewith Christians. 3) Upon the first day of the week. Like the other two items, this ismentioned as a well understood practice among them; hence no explanation is given of it.It is said that the disciples "came together" or assembled themselves together,a common phrase for their church meetings. Thus Peter "went in and found many thatwere come together." Acts 10:27 "Ye come together not for the better.... When yecome together in the church." 1 Cor. 11:17,18. "If therefore the whole church become together into one place." "When ye come together every one of you hath apsalm." 1 Cor. 14:23,26. "Not forsaking the assembling of yourselvestogether." Heb. 10:25. This indicates, therefore, their customary meeting.
Notice the further fact, verse 6, that Paul was there seven days, yet no noticewhatever is taken of the Sabbath Day, not even to name it, while the first day isprominently noticed. The breaking of bread and the assembling on the first day of theweek, it will be noticed, are connected together. Notice further, that though Paul wasthere a whole week and over the Jewish Sabbath, yet the Lord's supper is not administereduntil Sunday. This shows that for some reason Sunday was regarded by them as the onlyproper day for it. "It shows further, that Paul tarried there several days waitingfor the regular day of worship to come, the first day of the week." "And thereason assigned for their coming together was to BREAK BREAD, and not because Paul wasthere.
Sabbatarians argue that this meeting at Troas was on Saturday evening and hence Paulwent on his journey Sunday morning. Even if this were so, it would not prove that Paul didnot regard Sunday, for, hastening if possible to be at Jerusalem on Pentecost, verse 16,he had to go when the vessel went whether he liked to or not, for he was only a passenger.See verse 13, and chapter 21:1,2. But it is more probable that Luke reckoned time afterthe Roman method, from midnight to midnight, as John did in John 20:19. "The same dayat evening, being the first day of the week." Here Sunday evening is reckoned asbelonging to the first day. Luke wrote for the Gentiles, was a learned man himself, andwrote Acts long after the resurrection, when Roman ways were coming more to be adopted.Moreover the meeting at Troas was on the first day of the week and they departed "onthe morrow," verse 7, which surely could not have been the same day.
Prof. A. Rauschenbush, of Rochester Theological Seminary, says: "These events didnot occur in the time of the Old Testament, but of the New; not in Palestine, but upon thewest coast of Asia Minor, nearly a thousand miles away. Furthermore, this was the time ofRoman rule, and upon every land and people that the Romans conquered they imposed, notonly their laws, but also their mode of reckoning time. Now, from their earliest history,the Romans began the day at midnight. At this visit of Paul to Troas the west coast ofAsia Minor had been in their possession for one hundred and eighty years." Saturdayor Sunday, page 14. Prof. Hachett, on Acts 20:7, says: "As Luke had mingled so muchwith foreign nations and was writing for Gentile readers, he would be very apt todesignate the time in accordance with their practice; so that his evening or night of thefirst day of the week would be the end of the Christian Sabbath and the morning of hisdeparture that of Monday."
This is rendered almost certain by the fact that Acts is addressed to"Theophilus," who was not a Jew, but a Roman living in Italy. That the earlyChristians partook of the Lord's supper ever Sunday, is acknowledged on all hands.
Dr. Scott, on Acts 20:7, says: "This ordinance seems to have been constantlyadministered every Lord's Day."
Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Art. "Lord's Supper" says: "Originally thecommunion was administered every day, then every Sunday."
"It is well known that the primitive Christians administered the Eucharist everyLord's Day." Doddridge.
"In the primitive times it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord'ssupper every Lord's Day." Matthew Henry.
"Every first day of the week." Carson.
"All antiquity concurs in evincing that, for the first three centuries, all thechurches broke bread once a week." Alex Campbell, in "Christian System,"page 325. Dr. Albert Barnes on this verse says: "It is probable that the apostles andearly Christians celebrated the Lord's supper on every Lord's Day."
The Apostolic Constitutions, about A.D. 250, says that on "the Lord's Day meetmore diligently...[partaking of] the oblation the sacrifice, the gift of the holyfood." Book II, section 7, paragraph 55. Again, "We solemnly assemble tocelebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's Day." Book VII, section 2,paragraph 36.
Fabian, bishop of Rome, A.D. 250: "On each Lord's Day the oblation of the altarshould be made by all men and women in bread and wine." Decrees of Fabian, book V,chapter 7.
These testimonies throw great light upon the passages in the New Testament where thefirst day of the week, the Lord's Day, is referred to. They show that a weekly celebrationof that day was established in all churches by the apostles themselves. If Adventistscould find anywhere after the resurrection a gathering of Christians only for worship onthe Sabbath, it would be used by them as evidence of a custom in favor of Saturday. Letthem make the same deduction now in favor of Sunday.
1 Corinthians 16:1-2
With Acts 20 let us read 1 Cor. 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for thesaints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the firstday of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, thatthere be no gatherings when I come." What Paul here directs the Corinthians to do hehad also established among the churches at Galatia, verse 1. And this letter is addressedto "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."Chapter 1:2. He also says that what he writes must be received as "the commandmentsof the Lord." Chapter 14:37. Here, then, is an inspired commandment of the Lord Jesustouching the first day of the week and it is to all that call upon his name. This requiresa definite act of religious duty to be performed regularly upon each recurring Sunday, forthis did not relate to simply one first day, but to each one as it came. They are to layapart on that day a portion for the poor out of what God gives them. This implies that itwould be with them a day of leisure and devotion when they would be at home, have thetime, and be in a proper frame of mind to do this benevolent act - an act of worship,"a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." Phil. 4:18. Of old God had saidnone "shall appear before the Lord empty." Deut 16:16. On 1 Cor. 16:1-2, Dr.Clark remarks: "The apostle follows here the rule of the synagogue; it was theregular custom among the Jews to make their collections for the poor on the Sabbathday." For this purpose they had 'the purse of the alms,' or what we would term thepoor's box. This is what the apostle seems to mean when he says, let him lay by him instore; let him put it in the alms purse or in the poor's box." On this text Dr.Barnes truthfully remarks: "There can have been no reason why this day should havebeen designated except that it was a day set apart to religion and therefore deemed aproper day for the exercise of benevolence towards others." Why did Paul name Sundayrather than any other day in the week if it was not a religious day?
Adventists say that this does not imply any meeting that day. They were only to lay byat home. But this would defeat the very object Paul had in view. Paul said he hasted to beat Jerusalem. He could not be delayed to gather up collections when he came. So they wereto have them all collected and ready when he came. But if these gifts were all at theirhomes then the collection would have to be made after he came, just the thing he commandedto avoid, "that there be no collections when I come." Verse 2. Dr. Machnightrenders it: "On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itselfaccording as he may be prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come, theremay be no collections."
We have found four things which the disciples did on Sunday.
1. They assembled together. 2. They had a sermon. 3. They had the Lord's supper. 4.They gave for the poor. Opening to the very first of the early Christian fathers we findit was the custom of all Christians to do just these things every Sunday. Thus JustinMartyr, A.D. 140, in his Apology, Chapter LXVII, says: "And on the day called Sunday,all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memories ofthe apostles or the writings of the prophets are read,...bread and wine are brought, andthe president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability,and the people assent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and aparticipation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent aportion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what eachthinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphansand widows."
This shows that our conclusion from the above texts was correct. Thus as we see onopening to the early apostolic fathers immediately following the apostles, we find allChristians of all sects in all parts of the world holding their meetings on Sunday inremembrance of the resurrection, just as we do now. This shows beyond all reasonable doubtthat the custom was established by the apostles themselves, and that by the authority ofChrist. John 20:21-23.
Consider this important fact witnessed the world over today. We have five abidingwitnesses that Christ lived, all mentioned in the New Testament. 1st - The Church. "Iwill build my church." Matt 16:18. 2nd - New Testament. John "wrote thesethings." John 21:24. 3rd - Baptism. "Go baptizing them." Matt 28:19. 4th -Lord's Supper. 1 Cor. 11:20; "eat the Lord's Supper." 5th - Lord's Day. "Onthe Lord's Day." Rev. 1:10.
There are now about 500,000,000 people professing faith in Christ, scattered among allnations differing in doctrine almost endlessly. This difference extends back almost to thedays of the apostles. Yet all these differing sects hold in common these five memorials ofChrist's life - the Church, the New Testament, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Lord'sDay. The Eastern Church, the Armenian, Syrian, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran,Methodist, Baptist, and hundreds more, all hold sacredly these five things in some form.All agree that all five began back with the apostles and came from their hands. There isperfect agreement on this, viz., that one is as old as the other, that all have come downhand in hand together. These 500,000,000 all firmly believe and teach this. This unanimousagreement must be accounted for in some reasonable way. It cannot be ignored nor bluffedoff lightly. There can be only one truthful answer - all must have started together at thebeginning and have kept together till this day. And all history confirms it.
The one great point in the Sabbath question upon which Seventh-day Adventists stake themost, upon which they insist the strongest, which they repeat the most frequently and themost confidently, is that the pope of Rome did change the Sabbath from the seventh day tothe first day. They assert that this is all the authority Sunday-keepers have forobserving that day. Sunday is the pope's Sabbath, and Sunday-keeping is the mark of thebeast, Rev. 14:9-12, a terrible sin in the sight of God. See almost any work on theSabbath published by them.
They claim that Sunday keeping came from the pagans through the pope into the church.Thus: "The name, origin, authority, and sacredness of the Sunday institution arealtogether and only pagan." Replies to Elder Canright, page 133. Then the popechanged the Sabbath into the Sunday. Mrs. White says: "The pope had changed it [theSabbath] from the seventh day to the first day of the week." Again: "The popehad changed the day of rest from the seventh to first day." Early Writings, pages 26,55. Again: "Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbathinto Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from theBible." The Mark of the Beast, page 23. "Sunday keeping must be the 'mark of thebeast.'" The Marvel of Nations, by U. Smith, page 183. To this claim Mrs. White hasset the seal of divine inspiration. She says: "The change of the Sabbath is the signor mark of the authority of the Romish church." "The keeping of the counterfeitSabbath is the reception of the mark." Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.
This settles it with every Seventh-day Adventist. My experience is that a belief ofthis as a fact induces more persons to give up Sunday for Saturday than all otherarguments made by the seventh-day people. Convince a man that Sunday-keeping is only aCatholic institution, a rival to the Lord's Sabbath and hateful to God, and of course, ifhe has any conscience, he will keep it no longer. Every one of them accepts this as ahistorical fact in fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. Indeed, this is the one main pillar intheir whole system, upon which all the rest depends. If their position upon this point isfalse, then their whole system is also false, as they will readily admit. On this ElderWaggoner says: "Elder Canright did not exaggerate when he said that we consider thisa material question. We do indeed so consider it." Replies to Elder Canright, page165. Then they should be able to prove the point very plainly. They claim to be raised upto preach against this change of the Sabbath by the pope.
The unmingled wrath of God is soon to be poured out upon all who continue to keepSunday, the Pope's Sabbath. It would seem that such a radical position should be supportedby the clearest evidence. They claim that it is a historical fact that somewhere duringthe first five centuries after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday. If thisbe so, they should be able to produce reliable historical proof for it, giving the TIME,MANNER, PLACE, PERSONS, FACTS and REASONS for so remarkable an occurrence. I have beforeme two books written expressly to prove this assertion. They are: "Who Changed theSabbath?" 24 pages, and "Marvel of Nations," 282 pages. But the only directproof offered is simply quotations from Catholic Catechisms, which claim that their churchmade the change! And is this all the historical (?) proof they can present on this point?Yes, for all that the Sabbatarian writers and scholars for the last 200 years have beenable to find is just this and nothing more. Not one single historian in all the annals ofthe world has ever stated that the pope changed the Sabbath. For twenty-eight years Imyself quoted these catechisms as proof positive on that subject.
Goaded by my call for proof on this point, the Adventists selected Elder Waggoner toanswer it, to find some author who says that the pope changed the Sabbath. The elder madea desperate attempt, covering forty-nine closely printed pages. He searched the librariesof America and Europe. What did he find? If he had a passage to the point, he could havequoted it in a few lines. But he had none. Not a single author did he quote saying thatthe pope changed the Sabbath. So it rests merely on the claim of just these CatholicCatechisms. Then if we admit on their mere assertion the boastful claim of the Catholicsthat they changed the Sabbath, why not also admit their claim that the pope is infallible,that he has the keys of St. Peter, the chair of the apostle, the only true apostolicsuccession, etc.? Seventh-day people quickly repudiate all these other claims of theCatholics, but eagerly admit their claim that they changed the Sabbath, simply becausethis suits their theory, for which they can find no other proof. They denounce Catholicwriters as forgers, cheats, deceivers and liars, then, when it suits their purpose, turnaround and quote their mere assertions as unquestionable truth!
Moreover, even the claims of the Catechism are misrepresented. The theory is that somehundreds of years after Christ the pope, by his own authority, changed the Sabbath, andthe Catechisms are explained to teach this idea. But not one of them make such a claim oranything like it. Every one of these Catholic quotations states distinctly that the changein the Sabbath was made, not by the pope, but "by the church" in the days ofChrist and the apostles, not several hundred years afterward. Thus: "Question: Whatare the days which the church commands to be kept holy? "Answer: 1. The Sunday, orour Lord's day, which we observe by apostolic tradition, instead of the Sabbath."Catholic Christian Instructed, page 209.
>From the same work, we take the following: "Question: What warrant have youfor keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?""Answer: We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolictradition."
Catholics claim that their "church" originated in the days of the apostles,and any change made by the apostolic church was made by the Catholic church. Hence theyclaim that the "Catholic church" changed the Sabbath in the days of theapostles. Adventists in using these quotations from the Cathechisms explain them as sayingthat the change was made by the apostate popes hundreds of years after the apostles. Butthe Catechisms claim no such thing, as is seen in the above quotations. Thus even theCatechisms, when fairly read, teach that Sunday observance originated with the Christianchurch in the days of the apostles, just the truth exactly.
That Adventists do misrepresent the teachings of the Catholics is shown by thefollowing testimony of a Catholic Priest: "Having lived for years among theSeventh-day Adventists, I am familiar with their claims that the Pope of Rome changed theSabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week. Such assertions are whollyunfounded. Catholics claim no such thing; but maintain that the apostles themselvesestablished the observance of Sunday and that we received it by tradition from them. Thecouncils and popes afterwards simply confirmed the keeping of the day as received from theapostles. John Meiler, Rector of St. John's Church, Headlsburg, Cal."
The "Catholic Dictionary," by Addis and Arnold, after quoting Rev. 1:10; Acts20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2 says: These texts "seem to indicate that Sunday was already asacred day on which deeds of love were specially suitable. Heb. 10:25 shows this much:that the Christians, when the epistle was written, had regular days of assembly. Thescriptural references given above show that the observance of Sunday had begun in theapostolic age; but even were Scripture silent tradition would put this point beyond alldoubt."
John Ankatell, A.M., priest of the diocese of New York, writing in the Outlook, July,1889, says of Sunday, the Lord's Day: "We think it was given by our Lord to theapostles during the great forty days after his resurrection, but we cannot provethis." He states the Catholic doctrine exactly, viz: That the change was made byChrist and the apostles, but that the scriptures are not plain enough on this point toprove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic authority which says it was made in NewTestament times. All Catholics and all their catechisms say the same. But this is entirelydifferent from saying that the pope made the change several hundred years after Christ.This is a sample of how Adventists pervert the testimony they use. (See Appendix E)
We will now present historical evidence, proving that the observance of the first dayof the week as a day of worship was universal among Christians in the days immediatelyfollowing the apostles. If Sunday worship originated here, then it did not originate withthe papacy, which came up several hundred years later.
Pliny's Letter, A.D. 107.
Pliny was the governor of Bithynia, Asia Minor, A.D. 106-108. He wrote A.D. 107 toTrajan, the emperor, concerning the Christians, thus: "They were wont to meettogether, on a STATED DAY before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately ahymn to Christ as God....When these things were performed, it was their custom to separateand then come together again to a meal which they ate in common without anydisorder." Horne's Introduction, Vol. 1, chapter 3, section 2, page 84. That this wasSunday is evident. 1) They came together to worship Christ. 2) They assembled to eat ameal together, the Lord's supper. We have already proved that the "stated day"for this was Sunday. "Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came togetherto break bread." Acts 20:7. This is exactly parallel to Pliny.
Eusebius, the historian, A.D. 324, says: "I think that he [the psalmist] describesthe morning assemblies in which we are accustomed to assemble throughout the world.""By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early andevery morning of the resurrection day throughout the whole world." Sabbath Manual,page 125. This is exactly what Pliny says: They met together "on a stated day beforeit was light," they assembled to eat together a meal. Eusebius says it was the customof all Christians "to meet very early and every morning of the resurrectionday." This ought to settle it and does. Pliny's stated day was Sunday. This was inthe very region where the apostles labored, and only ELEVEN years after St. John died.Elder Andrews, Sabbatarian, says: "This testimony of Pliny was written a few yearssubsequent to the time of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had beenfounded by the apostle Peter." Hist. Sab., page 237. It shows that the apostlestaught Sunday keeping.
Barnabas, A.D. 120.
This epistle was highly prized in the earliest churches, read in some of them as partof scripture, and is found in the oldest manuscript of the scriptures, NAMELY THESINAITIC. That it was written by a pious man of learning and influence cannot be doubted.Elder Andrews, Seventh-day Adventists, admits that the epistle of Barnabas "was inexistence as early as the middle of the second century, and, like the 'ApostolicConstitutions,' is of value to us in that it gives some clue to the opinions whichprevailed in the region where the writer lived." Testimony of the Fathers, page 21.
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "The epistle was probably written inAlexandria at the beginning of the second century and by a Gentile Christian." TheEncyclopedia Britannica, the highest critical authority, says: "This work isunanimously ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul, by early Christianwriters.... But the great majority of critics assign it to the reign of Hadrian sometimebetween 119 and 126 A.D." Smith's Dictionary of the Bible says: "The epistle isbelieved to have been written early in the second century." Johnson's New UniversalCyclopedia says: It "is supposed by Hefele to have been written between 107-120A.D.... It is frequently cited by the Fathers, and was by many regarded as being ofauthority in the church; some even claiming for it a place in the sacred canon."
This is a summary of the best modern criticism as to the date, character and authorityof the epistle of Barnabas. Read and reverenced in the church as early as A.D. 120, orwithin twenty-four years of the death of St. John, it shows what Christians believed andpracticed immediately after the apostles. In this epistle we read: "Incense is a vainabomination unto me, and your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure. He has, therefore,abolished these things." Chapter II. Elder Andrews admits that "he presentlyasserts the abolition of the Sabbath of the Lord." "Testimony," etc., page22. Coming to the first day of the week, Barnabas says: "Wherefore, also, we keep theeighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead."Chapter 15.
What does Elder Andrews say to this testimony? He admits that it teaches the abolitionof the Jewish Sabbath and the keeping of Sunday. But he argues that such a doctrine iscontrary to the Bible; that is, to HIS idea of the Bible. While I was yet a firm believerin the seventh day, when reading this book, I was struck with the fact that Elder Andrews,all through his book had to oppose and combat the teachings of all these early fathers!The reason is manifest: he held one doctrine and they held another. He believed in theseventh day, and they believed in the first day. Some of them lived early enough to haveconversed with the apostles themselves, while he lived eighteen hundred years later! Whichwould be apt to know best?
In his "History of the Sabbath," page 308, he says: "The reasons offeredby the early fathers for neglecting the observance of the Sabbath show conclusively thatthey had no special light on the subject by reason of living in the first centuries, whichwe in this latter age do not possess." What a confession that is from the ablesthistorian the seventh day ever had! He admits that "the early fathers" "inthe first centuries" neglected "the observance of the Sabbath." Whatfurther need have we for witness to prove that the seventh day was not observed in thefirst centuries? But how does this harmonize with the theory that the Sabbath was changedto Sunday by the pope several hundred years afterwards? Suppose those early fathers werenot good theologians, nor able reasoners; could they not testify to a simple FACT? Couldthey not state whether they did or did not keep Saturday? Surely that knew enough forthat, and this is all we wish to ask.
We do not quote these fathers to prove a doctrine; for that we go only to the Bible. Wequote them to prove a simple, historical FACT, viz: that the early Christians did keepSunday, hence it could not have started with the popes centuries later.
The Teaching of the Apostles, A.D. 125.
This was not written by the apostles; yet its date is very early. Some place it asearly as A.D. 80. Professor Harnack, of Berlin, says many place it between A.D. 90, andA.D. 120. This is the date most favored. It can not be much later. The New YorkIndependent says of it: "By all odds the most important writing exterior to the NewTestament." Professor D.R. Dungan, President of Drake University, says: "It isevident that it is not far on this side of the death of the apostle John." The notedscholar, Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, in his Sabbath for Man, page 383, says: It was"written, as the best scholars almost unanimously agree, not later than forty yearsafter the death of the last of the apostles, and during the lifetime of many who heardJohn's teaching." In the preface to this important document, the editors, Profs.Hitchcock and Brown in the Union Theological Seminary, N.Y., say: "The genuineness ofthe document can hardly be doubted." "The document belongs undoubtedly to thesecond century; possibly as far back as 120 A.D.; hardly later than 160."Introduction.
Chapter fourteen of the Teaching of the Apostles says: "But every Lord's day do yegather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving," etc. Thistestimony is clear and decisive that the Lord's day was the established day of worship, atthat early day.
Justin Martyr, A.D. 140.
I quote from "The Complete Testimony of the Fathers," by Elder Andrews:"Justin's 'Apology' was written at Rome about the year 140," "and this at adistance of only forty-four years from the date of John's vision upon Patmos.""It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in doctrine,paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treatsit with contempt." Page 33.
This is the confession which even the historian of the Seventh-day Adventists iscompelled to make. The Jewish Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians withinforty-four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is proven by the testimony ofa man who lived right there.
Hear Elder A. again: "We must, therefore, pronounce Justin a man who held to theabrogation of the ten commandments, and that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution whichwas unknown before Moses, and of no authority since Christ. He held Sunday to be the mostsuitable day for public worship." Page 44. This is the doctrine that the early churchand fathers held. Justin in his "Apology" for them to the emperor fairlyrepresented what Christians generally held then, just as he should have done. ElderAndrews conveys the impression that Justin represented only a small party of apostateChristians at Rome and that he is quite unreliable. But the facts are just the reverse. Hewas a Greek, born in Palestine and held his "Dialogue with Trypho," at Ephesus,Asia Minor, in the church where St. John lived and died, the very center of the Easternchurch, and only forty-four years after John's death. Of Justin the Encyclopedia Americanasays: "One of the earliest and most learned writers of the Christian church.... Hewas also equally zealous in opposing alleged heretics." Schaff-Herzog Encyclopediasays: "In these works Justin professes to present the system of doctrine held by allChristians and seeks to be orthodox on all points. The only difference he knows of asexisting between Christians concerned the millennium. Thus Justin is an incontrovertiblewitness for the unity of the faith in the church of his day, and to the fact that theGentile type of Christianity prevailed."
"Eusebius says that he overshadowed all the great men who illuminated the secondcentury by the splendor of his name." His writings are "the most important thathave come to us from the second century." McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia,Article Justin Martyr.
Dr. Schaff says of him: "After his conversion Justin devoted himself wholly to thevindication of the Christian religion, as an itinerant evangelist, with no fixedabode." Church History, Vol. 1, page 482. Not only were his books accepted withoutdispute as expressing the practice of the church, but his itinerant life, now inPalestine, then in Rome, Greece, Ephesus, enabled him to know this practice, and stampshis testimony with a force equal to demonstration. So, then, Justin is an unimpeachablewitness for the faith and practice of Christians generally a few years after the death ofthe apostles.
Now hear what Justin says about the first day of the week: "And on the day calledSunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and thememoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to theimitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we beforesaid, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president inlike manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the peopleassent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of thatover which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by thedeacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what iscollected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and thosewho, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and thestrangers sojourning among us, and, in a word, takes care of all who are in need. ButSunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day onwhich God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and JesusChrist, our Saviour, on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the daybefore that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day ofthe sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, whichwe have submitted to you also for your consideration." The First Apology of Justin,Chapter 67.
Does Elder Andrews question the genuineness of this document? No, indeed. What answerdoes he make to it? Simply that Justin does not call Sunday the Sabbath nor the Lord'sday! This is readily answered by the fact that Justin was writing to a heathen emperor whowould have been wholly ignorant of the meaning of either of those terms, but who wasfamiliar with the term "Sunday." So Justin of necessity used that term. Butthere the naked facts stand, clear, positive and undeniable, that within forty-four yearsafter the book of Revelation was written Christians did not keep the seventh day, but didhold their assemblies on Sunday. And Justin says that Jesus taught these things to theapostles. With these undeniable facts before him, it is a marvel how any man can say thatthe Sabbath was changed to Sunday three or four hundred years after this by the apostatepopes. For myself I became fully satisfied that such statements are contrary to all theplainest facts of history, as may be seen by the above unquestioned statement of JustinMartyr.
It is impossible that Sunday-keeping could have thus been universally introduced intoall churches without a word of objection, unless it had started at the fountain-head, withthe apostles themselves. Consider well the force of this fact: From the very earliestdays, reaching almost back to the apostles themselves, the church was divided intoopposing sects, and controversy between them was often very strong. Yet all agreed inkeeping Sunday. So today: go to any part of the globe and wherever you find Christians ofany sect or nation, there you find them keeping Sunday. A few Sabbatarians of late originare the only exceptions to this. How did this universal custom come about if not startedat the very foundation of the church by the apostles themselves?
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in Greece, A.D. 170.
But we will hear further from these fathers themselves as to whether they kept Sunday.Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, the church which Paul raised up and to which he gave thecommand about Sunday collections, 1 Cor. 16:1-2, says: "We passed this holy Lord'sday, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able todraw admonition." Eusebius, Eccl. History, Book 4, Chapter 23. That the Lord's day isthe resurrection day we have seen. This term is never applied to any other than the firstday. Notice that this witness is from Greece, not Rome. So the resurrection day was a"holy" day, A.D. 170.
Bardesanes of Edessa, Syria, A.D. 180.
Coming down only ten years we have the testimony of the heretic Bardesanes, the Syrian,who flourished about A.D. 180. He belonged to the Gnostic sect. He says: "On one day,the first day of the week, we assembled ourselves together, and on the days of thereadings we abstain from [taking] sustenance." Book of the Laws of Countries. SaysElder A.: "This shows that the Gnostics used Sunday as the day for religiousassemblies." Testimony, etc., page 53. Here is another good testimony for Sunday, andanother good confession from Elder A. All parties, orthodox and heretic, kept Sunday asearly as A.D. 180. How, then, is it that Constantine and the pope changed the Sabbath toSunday two to four hundred years later? Elder A's own words utterly refute such an idea.
Notice here also a refutation of the idea so strongly urged by Sabbatarians, thatSunday-keeping originated at Rome, and was for a long time confined there. Elder Andrewshas to admit that the Gnostics at this date used Sunday as a day of worship. But, 1) TheGnostics were emphatically an eastern sect, originating in Syria, and were most numerousin Alexandria, Asia Minor, and the East. Rome never had any influence over them.Bardesanes himself lived at Edessa, in Mesopotamia, 1,500 miles east of Rome, on anothercontinent, under another nation. 2) This sect was numerous in the East as early as A.D.150, or 55 years after the death of John. So we have Sunday-keeping not only at Rome butall over the east as early as A.D. 150, hundreds of years before the pope had a particleof influence there.
Clement of Alexandria, Egypt, A.D. 194.
Clement was one of the most celebrated of the Christian fathers. He wrote about A.D.194. He says: "He, in fulfillment of the precept, keeps the Lord's day when heabandons an evil disposition, and assumed that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord'sresurrection in himself." Book 7, Chapter XII. The Lord's day, it will be seen hereand all along, is the resurrection day. Clement lived, not at Rome, but in Egypt. SoSunday-keeping was not simply a Roman usage as Adventists claim.
Tertullian of Africa, A.D. 200.
Tertullian was one of the most noted of the early fathers. Was born A.D. 160. He washighly educated, bred to the law, and very talented. Brought up a pagan, he was convertedto Christ and vehemently opposed heathenism ever after. Radically severe in hisprinciples, opposed to all conformity to the world, the laxity of the Roman church drovehim to withdraw from it, which he ever after hotly opposed. So he was not a Romanist, nordid Rome have a particle of influence over him only to drive him the other way. He wasstrictly orthodox in faith and a lover of the scriptures. Hence if it were true thatSunday keeping, as a heathen institution, was being introduced into the church by Rome,Tertullian is just the man who would have opposed and fearlessly condemned it.
Johnson's Cyclopedia says of him: "One of the greatest men of the earlychurch." He "joined the Puritanic sect of the Montanists. They were orthodox indoctrine, but stern in spirit and discipline." "He remained true to the faith ofthe Catholics, but fought them vehemently on matters of morality and discipline. He wasalso a representative of the African opposition to Rome." The Schaff-HerzogCyclopedia says of him: "One of the grandest and most original characters of theancient church." "Greek philosophy he despised." Of his great book theysay: "One of the magnificent monuments of the ancient church." Anton's ClassicalDictionary says of him: "He informs us more correctly than any other writerrespecting the Christian doctrines of his time.... Tertullian was held in very high esteemby the subsequent fathers of the church." Neander says: "Tertullian is a writerof peculiar importance." Rose's Neander, page 424.
Here then is a competent and unimpeachable witness to the doctrines and practices ofthe universal church, A.D. 200, or only 104 years after John. Time and again he arguesthat the Sabbath was abolished, that Christians do not keep it, but do keep Sunday, theLord's Day. Of the abolition of the Sabbath he says: "Let him who contends that theSabbath is still to be observed... teach us that for the past time righteous men kept theSabbath." "God originated Adam uncircumcised and inobservant of theSabbath." So he says Abel, Noah, Enoch, etc., were "inobservant of theSabbath." Answer to the Jews, chapter 2. Again: "The old law is demonstrated ashaving been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath isdemonstrated to have been temporary." Chapter 4. "We solemnize the day afterSaturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it toease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorantof." Tertullian's Apology, chapter 16. Tertullian again declares that his brethrendid not observe the days held sacred by the Jews: "We neither accord with the Jews intheir peculiarities in regard to food, nor in their sacred days." "We, however,(just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard notonly against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even ourbusiness, lest we give any place to the devil." Tertullian on Prayer, chapter 23.Sunday, then, was observed by Christians at that early date, but Saturday was not.
Origen, A.D. 225.
Origen (about A.D. 225) was a man of immense learning, and his writings are numerous."Origen may well be pronounced one of the ablest and worthiest of the churchfathers." McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia. He says: "If it be objected to uson this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as, for example,the Lord's Day, the preparation, the passover, or pentecost." Origen against Celsus,book 8, chapter 22. This plainly shows that he did observe the Lord's Day. Origen's homewas in Egypt, but he traveled all over the East and died at Tyre. Notice that witnessesfor Sunday came from all parts of the world, not one from Rome.
The Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 250.
Of the "Apostolic Constitutions" (A.D. 250) Elder Andrews says: "The so-called 'Apostolic Constitutions' were not the work of the apostles, but they were inexistence as early as the third century, and were then very generally believed to expressthe doctrine of the apostles. They do therefore furnish important historical testimony tothe practice of the church at that time. Mosheim, in his 'Historical Commentaries,' Cent.1, section 51, speaks thus of these 'constitutions': 'The matter of this work isunquestionably ancient; since the manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view arethose which prevailed among the Christians of the second and third centuries, especiallythose resident in Greece and the oriental regions.'" Testimony, etc., page 13. Noticeagain that this work was the product of the eastern church and hence shows the custom ofthe church in the east instead of that at Rome.
These, then, will be good witnesses to the practice of the church about A.D. 250. Insection 7, paragraph 59, we read: "And on the Lord's Day, meet more diligently,sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus and sent him to us.""Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hearthe saving word concerning the resurrection." In book 7, section 2, paragraph 30, hesays: "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's Day, assembleyourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God," etc. In the same paragraph,in speaking of the resurrection of Christ, the writer says: "On which account wesolemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's Day," etc.
These testimonies are decisive, and do show beyond a doubt that the Christians of thoseearly days used Sunday just as it is now used for religious worship. Did they, then, have"the mark of the beast" at least 250 years before the beast had arisen,according to the Seventh-day Adventists' theory? These unquestionable facts of history,taken from their own published works and admitted by them to be true, show the utterabsurdity of their position that Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast.
Anatolius, A.D. 270, Bishop of Laodicea, Asia.
He was bishop of Laodicea, Asia Minor. Not a Roman, but a Greek. This church was raisedup by Paul himself, and must have been well acquainted with the apostle's doctrine. In hisseventh canon Anatolius says: "The obligation of the Lord's resurrection binds us tokeep the paschal festival on the Lord's Day." In his tenth canon he uses thislanguage: "The solemn festival of the resurrection of the Lord can be celebrated onlyon the Lord's Day." In his sixteenth canon he says: "Our regard for the Lord'sresurrection which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrate it on the sameprinciple." See how all these early Christians call the resurrection day "theLord's Day" and how they honor it. How entirely different from our Sabbatarians whocan hardly find terms enough by which to express their contempt for Sunday! Why is thisdifference and what does it show?
Victorinus, Bishop of Petau, A.D. 300.
"On the former day [the sixth] we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on theLord's Day we may go forth to our bread with givings of thanks. And let the parascevebecome a rigorous fast lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews whichChrist himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by his prophets that his soul hateth whichSabbath he in his body abolished." Creation of the World, section 4.
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 306.
"But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it he rose again, onwhich day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee." Canon 15. Hegives the same reason 1581 years ago for keeping the Lord's day that Christians give now.This was more than 200 years before the pope came into power. Notice that these witnessesfor Sunday are from all parts of the world, from Africa, Asia and Europe, not simply fromRome, as Seventh-day Adventists untruthfully say. These show that Sunday-keeping was aswidespread as the Christian Church itself, and that from the earliest days.
Eusebius, A.D. 324.
Eusebius was born in Palestine, the very home of Christ and the apostles and the cradleof the early church. He was bishop of Cesarea where Paul abode two years. Acts 23:33;24:27. He studied at Antioch where Paul labored for years. Acts 15:1. He traveled to Egyptand over Asia Minor. He was one of the most noted men of his age. He wrote the firsthistory of the Christian church and bears the title of "Father of ChurchHistory." The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "As a repertory of facts anddocuments, his work is invaluable." Johnson's Cyclopedia says: "He was veryeminent for learning, as well as talents." Horne's Introductions says: "A man ofextraordinary learning, diligence and judgment, and singularly studious in thescriptures.... His chief work in his Ecclesiastical History, in which he records thehistory of Christianity from its commencement to his own time.... He has delivered, nothis own private opinion, but the opinion of the church, the sum of what he had found inthe writings of the primitive Christians." Vol. 1, Chapter 11, Section 2, page 42.
He had every possible opportunity to know what Christians did throughout the world. Ofhim Justin Edwards, D.D., says: "He lived in the third century, was a man of vastreading, and was as well acquainted with the history of the church from the days of theapostles as any man of his day." At Cesarea was "a very extensive library, towhich Eusebius had constant access. He was a learned and accurate historian and had theaid of the best helps for acquiring information upon all subjects connected with theChristian church." Sabbath Manual, pages 124-125. He lived right there, knew justwhat Christians did, and wrote about fifty years before the council of Laodicea whereAdventists say the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Hear him: Speaking of the patriarchsbefore the flood, he says: "They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, NOR OBSERVETHE SABBATH, NEITHER DO WE;... because such things as these do not belong toChristians." Eccl. Hist., Book 1, Chapter 4. This is decisive. A.D. 324, Christiansdid not keep the Sabbath.
True, there was a small heretical sect who kept the Sabbath as Judaizers do now. Ofthem he says: They are "those who cherish low and mean opinions of Christ.... Withthem the observance of the law was altogether necessary [just like Seventh-day Adventists]as if they could not be saved only by faith in Christ as a corresponding life.... Theyalso observe the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews just like them, but on the otherhand they also celebrate the Lord's Day very much like us in commemoration of hisresurrection." Eccl. Hist., pages 112-113. Even these Judaizers kept Sunday. On theNinety-second Psalm he says: "The word by the new covenant translated and transferredthe feast of the Sabbath to the morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., the savingLord's Day." "On this day which is the first of light and of the true Sun, weassemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, evenall nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to thespiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath." Again:"And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we havetransferred to the Lord's Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." Quoted inJustin Edward's Sabbath Manual, pages 126-127.
This testimony of the great historian of the early church is decisive. It puts beyonddoubt that Christians in all the world did then keep Sunday, the Lord's Day, and did notkeep the Jewish Sabbath. It is a desperate cause which has to deny such testimony as this.
Summary of Testimony from Cyclopedias.
As a fair, impartial and clear statement of the teachings of the early Christianfathers concerning the observance of Sunday, we refer the reader to the following fromSmith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Lord's Day." Here is a book easy ofaccess to all anywhere, unsectarian, embodying the results of the most thorough andscholarly examination of every passage in all the fathers having any bearing upon theSunday question. Any one who has read the fathers must confess that its statements arefair and truthful. I have only room for one short quotation: "The results of ourexamination of the principle writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John, areas follows: 'The Lord's day existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel ofapostolical, and so of Scriptural Christianity. It was never defended; for it was neverimpugned, or at least only impugned as were other things received from the apostles. Itwas never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it.... It was notan institution of severe Sabbatical character, but a day of joy and cheerfulness, ratherencouraging than forbidding relaxation. Religiously regarded, it was a day of solemnmeeting for the holy eucharist, for united prayer, for instruction, for alms-giving; andthough being an institution under the law of liberty, work does not appear to have beenformally interdicted, or rest formally enjoined. Tertullian seems to indicate that thecharacter of the day was opposed to worldly business. Finally, whatever analogy may besupposed to exist between the Lord's day and the Sabbath, in no passage that has come downto us is the fourth commandment appealed to as the ground of the obligation to observe theLord's day.'"
So Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia, Art. Sabbath, says: "For a time the Jewishconverts observed both the seventh day, to which the name Sabbath continued to be givenexclusively, and the first day, which came to be called the Lord's day.... Within acentury after the death of the last of the apostles we find the observance of the firstday of the week, under the name of the Lord's day, established as a universal custom ofthe church.... It was regarded not as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath (which wasdenounced together with circumcision and other Jewish and anti-Christian practices), butrather as a substitute for it, and naturally its observance was based on the resurrectionof Christ rather than on the creation rest day, or the Sabbath of the Decalogue."
No higher authority than this could be quoted. It states the truth exactly. So theSchaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Art. Sunday, says: "In the second century its observancewas universal.... The Jewish Christians ceased to observe the Sabbath after thedestruction of Jerusalem."
Dr. Schaff, than whom there is no higher living authority, says: "The universaland uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by thefact that it had its root in apostolic practice." History of the Christian church,Vol. I, page 478.
The man who will shut his eyes to all this mass of testimony and still insist thatSunday-keeping is only an institution of popes of later ages, is simply held by a theorywhich he is bound to maintain anyway. I have had a sad experience in this matter, and knowjust how a seventh-day man feels in reading these historical facts. I read some of themtwenty years ago. They perplexed me some, but I got over this by my strong faith in ourdoctrines and by believing them to be mostly forgeries. Afterwards as I read more, I sawthese testimonies were reliable and very decidedly against our theory of the pope'sSunday. This disturbed me quite a little, but still I got over them by simply ceasing tothink of them at all, and by dwelling upon other arguments in which I had perfectconfidence. In debate I was always anxious to shut these out of the discussion. I knowthat Seventh-day Adventist ministers generally feel as I did, for we often referred tothese testimonies of the fathers and the effect they had in debate. Of course, the greatbody of the members never read these things, and are in blissful ignorance concerningthem. Or, if they do read them, it is in their own books where they are all explainedaway. Their unbounded faith in "the message" and in their leaders carries themright over these facts as matters of no consequence.
For myself, when once I decided to look these historical facts squarely in the face andgive them whatever force they fairly deserved, I soon saw the utter falsity of the claimthat the "pope changed the Sabbath." The old feeling of uneasiness on this pointis entirely gone. I feel that so far as the evidence of history is concerned, my feetstand on solid ground.
What answer do Sabbatarians make to all the preceding testimony? This:
1. "The Bible, the Bible only, is our rule. We don't go by history." Reply:Why then do they themselves appeal to history? No people depend so much upon history, nonerefer to it so often, none make so great claims from it as Seventh-day Adventists. ThusAndrew's book on the Sabbath contains 512 pages. Of these 192 are on the Bible and 320 onhistory. Yet they don't go by history! Wherever they can find a scrap in their favor theymake the most of it. Of their reliance on history Elder Smith says: "One of thegrandest facts we have to present is that God has always had witnesses to his holy Sabbathfrom the days of Adam till now." Replies to Canright, pages 41-42. Mark: One of thegrandest facts they have to present in favor of Saturday is what? Bible testimony? No, butwitness from history. Yet, they don't go by history! The fact is they quote historywhenever they possibly can. Why, then, cry out against history when we follow them there?Because it is against them.
2. They say that "the early fathers are unreliable, fools, apostates, forgers andfrauds." Listen to them: Of one of the fathers Elder Smith says: "A fraud, animpostor, a forger.... An old forger of the second century who wrote things too silly tobe repeated and too shameful to quote." Replies to Elder Canright, page 39. HearElder Waggoner: "Surely insanity could not produce any more driveling nonsense thanthis." "Such childish nonsense is seldom seen under the heading of reason.""It would have been a blessing to the world if they had all been lost." Fathersof the Catholic Church, pages 206, 209, 217. This is the way they dispose of all theChristian fathers who said a word in favor of Sunday. No doubt it would have been betterfor those who keep the Jewish Sabbath if all the Christian fathers had been lost and,better still, if the New Testament also had been lost, for both these are against them.Why this effort to break down the testimony of these early Christian writers? Because theyare against them and Sabbatarians know it. Whatever crude notions those fathers might havehad, they could state a simple fact of their own days as to whether they did, or did not,keep Sunday. They all agree that they did and their testimony is decisive.
But how much is there to their charge of fraud, forgery, etc.? Just this: In those daysthe author's name was not always signed to his book; hence it sometimes happened that abook was attributed to the wrong author by mistake. No fraud or forgery was designed orpracticed by any one. Look at Hebrews. No name is signed to it. It is still a disputedpoint as to who wrote it, Paul, Barnabas, or some other apostle. Shall we, therefore, callit a "fraud" and throw it out of the Bible? No. So of the epistle of Barnabasfor instance. No name was signed to it, yet it was generally attributed to the apostleBarnabas and was read in all the churches as authority as early as A.D. 120. Someattributed it to others; but all agree that it was written as early as A.D. 120 by someChristian and gave the opinion and customs of the church at that time. "Fraud,fraud," cry the Sabbatarians, "Barnabas never wrote it." Well, what of it?Some Christian wrote it within twenty-five years of John's death and it says thatChristians then kept Sunday.
3. "None of the fathers call Sunday the Sabbath." So say the Sabbatarians.That is about right. The early church said with Paul, Col. 2:16, that the Sabbath wasabolished with other Jewish rites. The first day was not the Sabbath, but "the Lord'sDay," "the eighth day," "resurrection day," etc.
4. Sabbatarians say that Christians worked on Sunday during the first century orlonger. Their evidence for this is very questionable as we will soon see. Yet possibly atfirst the day may not have been observed as strictly as later on; but still it was the dayon which all Christians met for their worship according to the custom of the apostles.This is what we claim and have abundantly proved.
5. Sabbatarians say: "The Christians kept the Sabbath for centuries afterChrist." Reply: All history abundantly shows that the Jewish Christians observed theSabbath, circumcision, Passover, etc., for a long time. In some churches where the Jewishelement predominated, the Gentiles may have also kept the Sabbath, but all parties keptSunday at the same time. These are the facts about Sabbath-keeping in the early church asproved above.
6. Seventh-day Adventists quote so-called "eminent historians" to prove theirassertions. With these authors they deceive the people and deceive themselves. They quotethem as "reliable historians," "high authorities," "eminentdivines," "all friends of Sunday," etc. But who are they? Look at Andrews'History of the Sabbath, their standard work. All others relating to the history of theSabbath are only a re-hash of this. It is served up on all occasion and his authors arequoted over and over by writers and preachers. But the great bulk of his quotations arefrom such men as Heylyn, Domville, Morer, Cox, Brerewood, White, etc., Episcopal clergymenof England who were bitter opposers of Sunday sacredness.
-1. Brerewood, in the seventeenth century, was only a college professor, not of noteenough to be even named in any cyclopedia I have seen, and I have consulted many. He was afiery erratic, and argued that the Sabbath law was given only to the master. See TheSabbath by Gilfillin, pages 122-123.
-2. Coleman, an American writer of our own times, scarcely mentioned in any cyclopedia.
-3. Dr. Cox, a Scottish anti-Sunday writer last century, not even named in anycyclopedia. See Gilfillin, page 168. Yet Andrews quotes him TWENTY-TWO TIMES, longquotations, as a friend of Sunday! He might as well quote one of his own party. In proofof this read the following from Dr. Lewis, Seventh- day Baptist, in his "History ofSabbath and Sunday": "A pastor of the Mill Yard Seventh-day Baptist Church inLondon, Robert Cornthwaite, published five works upon the Sabbath question." Of thelast book Lewis says: "Robert Cox quotes largely from this work." Pages 337-339.Exactly; then Andrews calls this man a friend of Sunday!!
-4. Domville, another anti-Sunday writer of the nineteenth century, not in anycyclopedia. He denies that there was any authority in the Bible for observing Sunday, evenas a day for meetings. Gilfillin, page 143. Yet Andrews quotes him THIRTEEN TIMES as astandard Sunday authority!
-5. Heylyn was the friend of the infamous Laud of England. In 1618 Charles I of Englandissued a "Book of Sports" for Sunday, allowing of dancing, wrestling and variousgames on Sunday. See Gilfillin, page 85. Pious people opposed the declaration as adesecration of Sunday. Laud, by the Kings command, hired this Heylyn and Dr. White towrite against Sunday sacredness, and in favor of the King's book. In four months a largevolume was written, printed and delivered according to order, to prove what was wantedagainst Sunday. The Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge says of Heylyn: "He was a veryvoluminous controversial writer, but his works are of no value now." From this manAndrews makes THIRTY-SIX quotations, many of them long, as his chief evidence on his mainpoints!
-6. White, the man associated with Heylyn, as the hireling of Laud in writing the abovebook, is quoted ELEVEN TIMES by Andrews as a reliable DEFENDER of Sunday! He might as wellquote Elder Waggoner as a defender of Sunday.
-7. Morer is a writer of the eighteenth century, mentioned in no cyclopedia. He wroteto disprove the divine origin of Sunday observance. See Gilfillin, page 142. Of one of hisstatements, which happened to favor Sunday, Elder Waggoner says: "Dishonest as itmanifestly is," etc. Replies to Elder Canright, page 146. From this"dishonest" man Elder Andrews makes no less than FORTY-SEVEN QUOTATIONS, many ofthem long!
-8. Jeremy Taylor, of the seventeenth century, the friend and chaplain of thevillainous Laud, wrote against the divine authority of Sunday, and yet is quoted byAndrews as the friend of Sunday!
These are samples of his authors. Most of them were members of the Church of England,and that, too, during the worst period of that church; a church which permits the widestrange in theological opinions, such as Unitarianism, Universalism, future probation,annihilation, rationalism, high church, low church, etc. How much then does it signify asto the soundness of one's opinion to state that he is a minister of that church?
Take from the historical part of Andrew's history his quotations and arguments from theabove authors and you would hardly have a skeleton left. And even quotations from theseare one-sided. Waggoner, Smith, Butler, and all the lesser lights among Seventh-dayAdventists who have come after Andrews simply use these quotations which he gathered forthem. But they might as well quote Ingersoll and Tom Paine as "friends of theBible" as to quote these men as "friends of the Sunday Sabbath." Each ofthem wrote on purpose to refute the claims of Sunday as a Sabbath of divine authority.Thousands of readers ignorant of history are misled, as I was once, by these quotationsused by the Adventists. If they had the truth they would not be compelled to rely uponsuch authors.
The Pagan Romans Never Kept Sunday
Seventh-day Adventists affirm that keeping Sunday was adopted from the pagan Romans bythe Catholics and from the Catholics by the Protestants. This idea they industriouslyteach everywhere. They say that these pagans kept Sunday in worship of the sun. SeeAndrews' History of the Sabbath, pages 258-2664. Such statements are utterly false. Eachday of the week was named after some god and, in a certain sense, was devoted to theworship of that god, as Monday to the moon, Saturday to Saturn, Sunday to the sun, etc.But did they cease work on these days? No; if they had they would have kept every day inthe week. Did they observe Sunday by ceasing to work? No, indeed. No such thing was taughtor practiced by the Romans. They had no weekly rest day.
Prof. A. Rauschinbusch of Rochester Theological Seminary quotes Lotz thus: "'It isa vain thing to attempt to prove that the Greeks and Romans had anything resembling theSabbath. Such opinion is refuted even by this, that the Roman writers ridicule the Sabbathas something peculiar to the Jews.' In proof he cites many passages from the Roman poets,and one from Tacitus. Seneca also condemned the Sabbath observance of the Jews as a wasteof time by which a seventh part of life was lost." Saturday or Sunday? Page 83.Herzog says: "No special religious celebration of any one day of the week can bepointed out in any one of the pagan religions." Article Sabbath. This fact isaccidentally confessed by Elder Waggoner. Of Constantine's law, A.D. 321, he says:"Though the venerable day of the sun had long - very long - been venerated by themand their heathen ancestors, THE IDEA OF REST FROM WORLDLY LABOR IN ITS WORSHIP WASENTIRELY NEW." Replies to Elder Canright, page 130. Mark this confession for it givesup the main pillar of their argument in their effort to prove that Sunday-keeping wastaken from the pagans. THE PAGASN NEVER KEPT SUNDAY. It was a common work day like otherdays of the week. The idea and the custom of keeping Sunday as a day of rest from workoriginated with the Christians, not with pagans. So much for that falsehood. Again:Saturday was sacred to Saturn as Sunday was to the sun. So Adventists are keeping aheathen day the same as Sunday-keepers are!
Constantine Did Not Change the Sabbath
It has been common for Sabbatarians to point to the law of Constantine as a chieffactor in changing the Sabbath to Sunday. There never was any truth in the charge; butElder Waggoner now owns it all up and confesses that it has nothing whatever to do inchanging the Sabbath. "Constantine, in his decrees, said not one word either for oragainst keeping the Sabbath of the Bible." "It is safe to affirm that there wasnothing done in the time of Constantine, either by himself or any other, that has theleast appearance of changing the Sabbath." Replies to Elder Canright, page 150. Thatis the truth and a good confession, though it contradicts all that they have saidheretofore. Now let them revise their old books to harmonize with this truth and they willbe much smaller.
Constantine's Sunday Law and Its Object
A.D. 321, Constantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, issued the following edict:
"Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on thevenerable day of the sun, but let those who are situated in the country, freely and atfull liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that noother day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment beinglet slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven."
The simple facts about this law are these: Christians from the days of the apostles hadkept the first day of the week; but there was no civil law to protect or aid them in it.By this time they had become very numerous in the empire and their influence was rapidlygaining. The old pagan religion was falling before them. Constantine, to say the least,was favorable to Christianity. His parents were Christians. He was shrewd enough to seethat it was for his interest to favor this new and rising religion. Hence, as soon as hepublicly professed Christianity, he issued several edicts favoring it in various ways,this one concerning Sunday among the rest. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia well says:"He was no doubt convinced of the superior claims of Christianity as the risingreligion; but his conversion was a change of policy, rather than of moral character. Heknew Christianity well, but only as a power in the Roman Empire and he protected it as awise and far-seeking statesman... His first edict concerning the Christians (Rome, 312) islost. By the second (Milan, 313) he granted them, not only free religious worship and therecognition of the state, but also reparation of previously incurred losses... A series ofedicts of 315, 316, 319, 321, and 323, completed the revolution. Christians were admittedto the offices of the state... An edict of 321 ordered Sunday to be celebrated bycessation of all work in public."
It will be seen that this edict was only one of seven issued to favor Christians. 1.)It was not made to please or favor the pagans, for, as seen above, they did not keepSunday. 2.) As we have proved, the Christians did all keep Sunday, hence this law wouldfavor and please them. 3.) The edict was not addressed to Christians for they needed nosuch law for themselves as they kept that day voluntarily. 4.) It was not worded inChristian terms, "Lord's Day," as it was addressed to pagans. 5.) It was couchedin pagan terms, "day of the sun," that pagans might understand it and that itmight offend them less. This law, then, made no change in the observance of Sunday on thepart of Christians; but it did secure to that day a better observance by requiringeveryone, pagans and all, to cease work that day. But it is said that this law ofConstantine, A.D. 321, was the first law ever made prohibiting work on Sunday. Very true,but why? Because none but Christians believed it wrong to work that day; and up to thatdate Constantine had no power to make laws and hence could not have made a law for keepingSunday if they had desired to. It is noticeable that the first emperor who favoredChristianity made, among other laws favoring Christians, a civil law prohibiting work onSunday.
That this law was made at the request of Christians is now admitted by Adventists. ThusElder A.T. Jones in the Battle Creek Journal, December 11, 1888, says: "It isdemonstrated that the first Sunday law that ever was enacted was at the request of thechurch; it was in behalf of the church, and it was expressly to help the church."Exactly, and this proves that the church kept Sunday before that law was made. It is anabsurdity to say that the pagans had always kept Sunday and yet had never made a lawconcerning it. As Adventists all agree, the first Sunday law was made to favor Christians.This shows that Sunday observance was then regarded as an essential part of Christianity.Of this law Mosheim says: "The first day of the week, which was the ordinary andstated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiarlaw enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerlybeen." Mosheim, century 4, part 2, chapter 4, section 5.
This law, addressed to pagans who had always worked on Sunday, required the cessationof business on that day and so secured to Christians a better observance of Sunday thanbefore. The ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen, writing of Constantine, says: "He alsoenjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's Day... He honored the Lord's Daybecause on it Christ rose from the dead." Ecc. Hist., page 22. It was, then, inbehalf of Sunday as a Christian day, not as a pagan festival, that this law was made.
Found At Last - The Exact Time and Place the Pope Changed the Sabbath!
I pressed the Adventists to name the time and place when and where the Sabbath waschanged by the pope, and to name the pope and the facts about such a change if it everoccurred. Nettled by this, Elder Waggoner undertook the Herculean task. A worse sample ofassumption and perversion of facts it would be hard to find. At last he settles on thecouncil of Laodicea, A.D. 364, as the place and time when and where the Sabbath waschanged. The 29th canon of that council read thus: "Christians ought not to Judaizeand to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's Day, shouldrest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them beaccursed from Christ." On this the Elder says: "Now, if any one can imagine whatwould be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to learn what itcould be." "Now I claim that I have completely met this demand; I have shown thetime, the place, and the power that changed the Sabbath." Replied to Canright, pages141, 151. He claims that this was "a Catholic council" and that "historiansearly and late have made much mention" of this council. Now let us examine hisposition.
1. If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the pope right here, as he affirms, thencertainly it was not changed before nor after at any other place. So if this fails theirwhole cause is lost. Let the reader mark the importance of this fact.
2. He admits what every scholar knows, that till after the time of Constantine thebishop of Rome had no "authority whatever above the other bishops" and so couldnot have changed the Sabbath before that time. He says: "It was Constantine himselfthat laid the foundation of the papacy." Replies to Elder Canright, page 148. Surelythe papacy did not exist before its foundation was laid.
3. He admits, as above, that Constantine did nothing to change the Sabbath.
4. But we have abundantly proved in preceding pages that all Christians long beforethis date were unanimous in observing the Lord's Day. This one simple facts proves theutter absurdity of the claim that it was changed at Laodicea, A.D. 364, or by the papacyat any time.
5. In the year 324, or just 40 years before the council of Laodicea, Eusebius, bishopof Cesarea, Palestine, wrote his celebrated history of Christianity. He had every possibleopportunity to know what Christians did throughout the world. He says: "And allthings whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred tothe Lord's Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." Quoted in Sabbath Manual,page 127.
That is the way the Sabbath and Sunday stood in the church 40 years before Laodicea.They did not keep the Sabbath, but did keep the Lord's Day, had transferred all things toit. How much truth, then, can there be in the position that the Sabbath was changed toSunday by the pope 40 years later? Shame on such brazen attempts to pervert the truth. Butlet us look at the real facts about the council at Laodicea. Seventh-day Adventists claimtwo things, viz: that the Sabbath was changed by the Roman church, and that it was done bythe authority of the pope. Then they select Laodicea as the place and time, but,
1. Laodicea is not Rome. It is situated in Asia Minor over 1,000 miles east of Rome. Itwas in Asia not in Europe. It was an Eastern, not a Western town, an oriental, not a Latincity.
2. It was a Greek, not a Roman city.
3. The pope of Rome did not attend this council at Laodicea, A.D. 364. Does Waggonerclaim that he did? No, he does not dare to.
4. The pope did not attend, nor did he send a legate or a delegate or any one torepresent him. In fact, neither the Roman Catholic church nor the pope had anything to dowith the council in any way, shape or manner. It was held without even their knowledge orconsent.
5. At this early date, A.D. 364, the popes, or rather bishops of Rome, had no authorityover other bishops. It was 200 years later before they were invested with authority overWestern churches. Even their authority was stoutly resisted for centuries in the Eastwhere this council was held. See Bower's History of the Popes, or any church history.Speaking of Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome A.D. 314 to 336, only 28 years before thiscouncil at Laodicea, Elder Waggoner says: "The bishop of Rome had not then yetattained to any authority whatever above the other bishops." Replies to Canright,page 143. This is true. Did they in the next twenty-eight years gain authority to changethe keeping of the Sabbath from one day to another throughout the whole world?Preposterous!
6. Liberius was bishop of Rome at the time of this council of Laodicea. He was degradedfrom his office, banished, and treated with the utmost contempt. Bowers says that in orderto end his exile, Liberius "wrote in a most submissive and cringing style to theeastern bishops." History of the Popes, Vol. I, page 64. And this was the pope whochanged the Sabbath at a council of these same eastern bishops, 1,000 miles away, which henever attended!
7. The council of Laodicea was only a local council, a small, unimportant affair andnot a general council at all. Elder Waggoner magnifies it into a great "Catholic[general] council," a claim which is utterly false. The general councils are: 1.)That at Nice, A.D. 325. 2.) That at Constantinople, A.D. 381. 3.) That at Ephesus, A.D.431, etc. See the list in Johnson's Cyclopedia, or any history. Bower in his extensivework, the "History of the Popes," gives an account of all the general councils,the important local councils, and all with which Rome or the popes had to do, but does noteven mention this one at Laodicea. He mentions many councils held about that time, but notthis one. He says: "Several other councils were held from the year 363 to 368, ofwhich we have no particular account." Vol. I, page 79. I have searched through anumber of cyclopedias and church histories and can find no mention at all of the councilat Laodicea, in most of them, and only a few lines in any. Rev. W. Armstrong, a scholar ofCanton, Pa., says: "This council is not even mentioned by Mosheim, Milner, Ruter,Reeves, Socrates, Sozomen, nor by four other historians on my table." McClintock andStrong_s Cyclopedia says: "Thirty-two bishops were present from different provincesin Asia." All bishops of the Eastern church, not one from the Roman church! And yetthis was the time and place when and where the Roman church and the pope changed theSabbath!
8. Now think of it: this little local council of thirty-two bishops revolutionizes thewhole world on the keeping of the Sabbath!
9. The fact is that this council simply regulated in this locality an already longestablished institution, the Lord's Day, just the same as council after council didafterwards. If this changed the Sabbath to Sunday, then it has been changed a hundredtimes since! Sabbatarians point to these different regulations as so many acts in changingthe Sabbath, when they have not the remotest relation to such a thing any more than havethe resolutions with regard to keeping Sunday which are passed year by year now in allreligious assemblies. Elder Waggoner makes this truthful statement: "The decrees ofcouncils have not as a general thing been arbitrary laws telling what MUST BE, so much sothey have been the formulation of the opinions and practices largely prevalent at thetime... Infallibility had been attributed to the pope hundreds of years before it became adogma of the church." Fathers of the Catholic Church, page 333, Exactly, and just sothe Lord's Day had been kept by the church hundreds of years before the council ofLaodicea mentioned it.
10. The church of Laodicea where this council was held was raised up by Paul himself,Col. 4:13, 16; 1Tim. 6: to close of the epistle. It was one of the seven churches to whichJohn wrote. Rev. 3:14. Hence it is certain it was well instructed and grounded in thedoctrines of the apostles. Between Paul and this council, that is A.D. 270, Anatolius wasa bishop of Laodicea. He wrote: "Our regard for the Lord's resurrection, which tookplace on the Lord's Day, will lead us to celebrate it on the same principle." Canon16. Here we have that church keeping Sunday one hundred years before this council.
11. Finally, if the council of Laodicea changed the Sabbath, as Adventists say, then itwas changed by the Greek church instead of the Roman church; changed by the easternchurches over which Rome had no authority; changed before the papacy was established,before the pope had any authority over the east, by a small local council which neitherthe pope nor any of his servants attended. The absurdity of this claim is manifest withoutfurther argument.
For many years I accepted these false statements of Sabbatarian writers as undoubtedtruths, as all their converts do. I had no means of knowing better. I preached stronglywhat I read in their books and led hundreds still more ignorant than myself to believe it.Gradually the truth dawned upon me that I was being misled, but it then took me years tolearn the real facts in the case and free myself from the superstition which bound me. NowI have investigated the matter till I am fully satisfied for myself that, to sustain theirfalse theories, they have done great violence to the plainest facts of history. Theassertion that the pope changed the Sabbath is a fair sample of the rest.
The Sabbath in Genesis
The Sabbath is not mentioned by name in the book of Genesis, nor till the time ofMoses. Gen. 2:1-3 states that God finished creation in six days and rested on the seventhday; and that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day "because that in it he hadrested." On this we remark: 1.) The day was not holy in itself. 2.) God's rest uponthat day did not make it holy. 3.) God sanctified or made holy the seventh day becausethat in it he HAD rested. His rest was over and passed before he blessed the day. 4.) Asto just WHEN God blessed the day the record does not clearly state. Some contend that hesanctified the day then and there in Eden. Others argue that this was not done till theexodus. Plausible arguments are used on both sides; but the simple fact that the mostgodly and learned men have always disagreed about the institution of the Sabbath in Edenshould teach us caution how we build a theory upon a disputed text so meager in statementand so far away in time. In all fairness it must be owned that the definite time when theSabbath was sanctified can not certainly be determined from this text.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible truthfully says: "It is in Ex. 16:23-29 that wefind the first incontrovertible institution of the day." Art. Sabbath. Of theargument on Gen. 2:1-3 for the institution of the Sabbath in Eden it says: "The wholeargument is very precarious." There is no command in Gen. 2 to keep the Sabbath. Wemust look elsewhere for that. The sanctification of the seventh day there mentioned isclaimed by some to have been by anticipation. As Moses wrote his books after he came toSinai, after the Sabbath had been given in the wilderness, he here mentions one reason whyGod thus gave them the seventh day, viz.: because God himself had set the example atcreation; had worked six days and rested the seventh. Such use of language is common. Wesay Gen. Grant was born at such a time. We do not mean that he was a general then, but wemention it by anticipation, using a title which he afterwards bore. So in Gen. 3:20,"Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."Here is a future fact stated as though it had already occurred. So 1Sam. 4:1, the Jews"pitched beside Eben-ezer." But the place was not named Eben-ezer till yearsafter. 1Sam. 7:12. "Judas Iscariot, which was also the traitor." Luke 6:16. Herea future fact with regard to Judas is mentioned when he is first spoken of, though the actof betrayal did not take place till years later. Just so when the seventh day is firstmentioned its sanctification is referred to, though it did not occur till afterwards. Wemust admit that this may have been so.
Ex. 20:8 says: "Remember the Sabbath day," etc. Sabbatarians claim that thisshows that the Sabbath existed from creation. It does not prove it, because the Sabbathhad been given some weeks before the decalogue was given. So this may refer back only toEx. 16, when the Sabbath is first named. Or, which is evidently the real truth about it,it may refer to keeping the Sabbath as it comes week by week. "Remember," don'tforget, to keep the Sabbath day.
Then it is now generally held by able Christian scholars that the days of creation wereindefinite periods of time. There is much to sustain this idea. Sabbatarians themselvesadmit this. Thus Rev. A.H. Lewis, D.D., Seventh-day Baptist, editor and author of severalcritical works on the Sabbath, says: "We apprehend that the creation week wasinfinitely longer than our week of seven days of twenty-four hours." Sabbath andSunday, page 8. But this fact is fatal to his definite seventh-day theory; for if God'sdays were not twenty- four hour days like ours, then we do not and can not rest on thesame definite day He did. Hence, we can only use God's week as a model - six days work,the seventh rest.
Sabbatarians think that the fourth commandment designates the identical day on whichGod himself rested. But this is not as clear as they claim. "The seventh day is theSabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. That is, the rest day of the Lord; hence itmust be the day on which he himself rested, they say. But this does not necessarilyfollow. The language simply claims that day as belonging to God. Take the day of thepassover: "The fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord."Num. 28:16. Did the Lord keep the passover that day? Hardly. Again: "These are thefeasts of the Lord." Lev. 23:4. Did the Lord feast on those days? Surely not. Thelanguage simply claims those days as sacred to God and that is all that Ex. 20:10 claimsfor the seventh day. The revised version gives the idea clearly: "The seventh day isa Sabbath UNTO THE LORD thy God."
Away back there in the dim past, where the events of an age are covered by one line inthe Bible, it is impossible now to determine exactly how it all was. Those ages beforeChrist are compared to shadows, Col. 2:17, and to the light of the moon, Rev. 12:1, whilethe gospel is compared to the sun. Rev. 12:1. Is it not the safest for us to walk in thelight of the sun instead of groping our way in the moonlight and shadows of the past? Butthe main reliance of Sabbatarians is upon arguments drawn from those remote times ofdarkness, while in the New Testament they find little to support their theories, but muchto explain away.
There is no statement that any of they patriarchs kept the Sabbath or knew anythingabout it. Sabbatarians say the record is so brief that it was omitted. Their proof then isWHAT WAS LEFT OUT!
Though the record from Adam to Moses covers a period of 2500 years; though we appear tohave a full account of the religious customs and worship of the patriarchs, such as Noah,Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc.; though we are told about circumcision, the altar, thesacrifices, the priests, the tithe, the oath, marriage, feast days, etc.; yet never a wordis said about any one keeping the Sabbath. This does not prove positively that they didnot keep it, but it does show a strong probability against it. This is the sum of what canbe fairly said about the Sabbath in Genesis. When men go back in Genesis to find theirprincipal argument for the Sabbath, is it not going a long ways and finding little uponwhich to establish a Christian duty? Would it not be wiser and safer to build our faithupon the plain requirements of the New Testament?
Testimony of Eminent Men
Justin Martyr, who wrote only 44 years after the death of St. John, and who was wellacquainted with the doctrine of the apostles, denied that the Sabbath originated atcreation. Thus after name Adam, Abel, Enoch, Lot and Melchizedek, he says: "Moreover,all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing toGod." Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 19.
Irenaeus says: "Abraham believed God without circumcision and the Sabbath."Adv. Hoeres, lib 4, c. 30.
Tertullian, A.D. 200, said: "Let them show me that Adam Sabbatized, or that Abelin presenting his holy offering to God pleased him by Sabbath observance, or that Enochwho was translated was an observer of the Sabbath." Against the Jews, section 4.
Eusebius, A.D. 324, the father of church history, says: "They (the patriarchs) didnot, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we." Eccl.Hist., book 1, chapter 4.
From this it will be seen that the early church did not believe that the Sabbathoriginated at creation. The same doctrine has been maintained by such eminent men asPaley, Hessey, Bishop Bramhall, etc. Paley says: "Now, in my opinion, thetransactions in the wilderness above recited were the first actual institution of theSabbath." Quoted in Watson's Institutes, Vol. II, page 515. The great John Miltonsays: "Whether its institution was ever made known to Adam, or whether anycommandment relative to its observance was given previous to the delivery of the law onMt. Sinai, much less whether any such was given before the fall of man, can not beascertained." A Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, page 299.
John Bunyan says: "Now as to the imposing of the seventh day Sabbath upon men fromAdam to Moses, of that we find nothing in holy writ, either from precept or example."Complete Works, page 892. So many of the best minds have not been able to find clear proofthat the Sabbath was kept before Moses. Others, as Clarke, Barnes, Scott, Lange, etc.,think it was. We best leave it as an unsettled question.
Granting that the Sabbath was given to Adam in Eden, it does not follow that all mennow must keep it. Look at what Adam was to do: 1st. Adam was only allowed to eat the fruitof trees and plants. Gen 1:29. The first permission to eat flesh was given to Noah. Gen9:3. 2nd. Adam was to tend garden. Gen. 2:15. 3rd. He was forbidden the tree of knowledge.Gen 2:17. 4th. He was given access to the tree of life. Gen 2:16. 5th. Adam was naked.Gen. 2:25. All this was in Eden before the fall. Must all men now eat and work and dressand do just as Adam did in Eden? No one believes that. Then it would not follow that wemust keep the seventh day even if Adam did. This simple fact demolishes the most confidentargument of Sabbatarians.
The Sabbath at the Exodus
The first mention of Sabbath observance is in Ex. 16. Many eminent scholars hold thatGod here changed the day of rest from the original seventh day to the sixth day of thecreation week. Others hold that the Jews, during their long slavery in Egypt, had lost theSabbath and that it was here renewed; while others hold that it was here given for thefirst time. Whichever position is correct, it is clear that the keeping of the Sabbath wasa new thing to the Jews. A few facts are plain. The deliverance of Israel from Egyptmarked a new era in the history of the church and of Israel. This is kept prominent allthrough the Bible. Here God gave them a new year and a new beginning of months. "Thismonth shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the yearto you." Ex. 12:2. Hence it is very probable that he might have given them a newSabbath day or one for the first time. The account of their first keeping the Sabbathshows plainly that they were not accustomed to it before.
Dr. H.C. Benson, the eminent M.E. editor, scholar and author, says of Ex. 16: "Itis so explicit that we are not left in doubt as to the fact that the Sabbath, as observedin the wilderness of sin, had not been a day hallowed by the Lord previous to thattime." Quoted and approved by Dr. Potts and Bishop Harris in The Lord's Day OurSabbath, page 15.
John Milton over 200 years ago said: "That the Israelites had not so much as heardof the Sabbath before this time, seems to be confirmed by several passages of theprophets." Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, book 2, chapter 7.
John Bunyan also said: "The seventh day Sabbath, therefore, was not from paradise,nor from nature, nor from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai."Complete Works, page 895.
It was new to them. Read it: Moses said on Friday, "Tomorrow is a solemn rest, aholy Sabbath unto the Lord." (R.V.) The last verse gives the conclusion of the wholematter. "So the people rested on the seventh day." That is, thus and for thisreason the people here began resting on the seventh day. There is no sense in the languageif this is not the meaning. Several scriptures harmonize well with this idea. Thus, Neh.9:13-14. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai... and MADEST KNOWN unto them theholy Sabbath." This implies that it was not known before. In harmony with this, Ezek.20:10- 12 says: "Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, andbrought them into the wilderness." "Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to bea sign between me and them." When did God give them the Sabbath? When he brought themout of Egypt. Where did he give it to them? In the wilderness. What for? For a signbetween himself and them.
It does not say that God RESTORED the Sabbath, but that he gave them the Sabbath."I gave them my Sabbaths" implies the act of committing it to them, showing thatthey did not have it before. Surely all these facts are plainly stated. They show that thekeeping of this day was a new thing to them and only for them. Deut. 5:15, states that theSabbath is to be kept as a memorial of Egypt. "Remember that thou wast a servant inthe land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence; ...therefore, theLord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." This indicates that the Sabbathwas a Jewish institution. One reason given why they should keep it was because they hadbeen delivered out of Egypt. Of course they would not keep it till the reason existed forkeeping it. The laws regulating how it should be kept show that it was a local institutionadapted only to the Jewish worship and to that warm climate. 1.) No fires must be built onthe Sabbath. Ex. 35:3. 2.) They must neither bake nor boil that day. Ex. 16:23. 3.) Theymust not go out of the house. Ex. 16:29. 4.) Their priests must offer two lambs that day.Num. 28:9. 5.) They must compel all among them, living in their land, to keep it. Ex.20:10. 6.) They must stone all who break it. Ex. 31:14. 7.) It must be kept from sunset tosunset. Lev. 23:32. 8.) Their cattle must rest. Ex. 20:10. No meetings were appointed forthat day. It was to be wholly a day of rest.
Seventh-day Adventists observe none of these things. Indeed, it would be impossible forthem to do most of them. They would freeze without fires and suffer without warm food.They go many miles on the Sabbath and drive their teams; they offer no lambs; they cancompel no one to keep it; nor do they stone those who break it. In the extreme north andin traveling around the earth they do not go by sunset time, for they cannot. TheirSabbathkeeping is no more like that of the Old Testament, such as the law required, thandarkness is like light. It shows the folly of their effort to keep an obsolete Jewish day.Nowhere are Gentiles required to keep the Sabbath except such as dwell among the Jews.They were also required to keep the other feast days. Lev. 16:29. All through the OldTestament the Gentiles are denounced over and over for all other sins, but not once forbreaking the Sabbath, though none of them kept it. The reason for this must be that it wasnot binding upon them. John Bunyan says: "We read not that God gave it to any but tothe seed of Jacob." Complete Works, page 895.
"The Jewish Sabbath" - A Proper Term for the Seventh Day
Sabbatarians strongly object to our calling the seventh day the "JewishSabbath." They ask, "Where does the Bible call it the Jewish Sabbath? It is 'thesabbath of the Lord they God.'" This simple argument has great force with many. But Iam satisfied it is perfectly proper to designate the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath.Seventh-day brethren are constantly talking and writing about "the ceremoniallaw" and the "moral law," nor could they properly express their ideas ofthe "two laws" without using these terms. But neither of them is once used inall the Bible. How is this? Will they admit that their idea is unscriptural because theseexact words are not used in the Bible? No. They freely use the terms "Jewishfestivals," "Jewish sabbaths," "annual sabbaths," "sabbathsof the Hebrews," etc. See "History of the Sabbath," pages 82, 83, 84, etc.Yet not one of these terms is found in the Bible, though they cannot get along withoutthem. It would be amusing to confine a Sabbatarian strictly to the Bible language and thenhear him attempt to preach on the two laws and the different sabbaths. "Those wholive in glass houses should not throw stones."
1. "Sabbath" is purely a Hebrew word never found till the time of Moses. Ex.16:23 2. The Word Sabbath is never used in the Bible except in connection with some Jewishholy time. 3. There is no record that the Sabbath was ever kept till the Jews kept it. Ex.16. 4. The Sabbath was given to the Jews. "I gave them my Sabbaths." Ez. 20:12If God gave it to the Jews, was it not their Sabbath; was it not the Jewish Sabbath? Igive Fred a knife. Is it not Fred's knife? 5. Notice how plain the record is that God gavethe Sabbath to the Jews, but to no others. "The Lord hath given YOU theSabbath." Ex. 16:29. "Speak unto the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, saying Verily, mySabbaths ye shall keep." Ex. 31:13. Who was told to keep the Sabbath? The children ofIsrael, the Jews. "It is a sign between me and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL," theJews. Verse 17. 6. God himself calls the Sabbath "her Sabbaths." Hosea 2:11."I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and herSabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Isn't it the Jewish Sabbath, then? 7. TheSabbath was never given to any other nation. 8. "The children of Israel shall keepthe Sabbath throughout their generation." Ex. 31:16. To whom was it confined? To thegeneration of the Jews. 9. "It is a sign between me and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."Ex. 31:17. It was theirs exclusively, Jewish. 10. The Sabbath is classed right in with theother Jewish holy days and sacrifices. See Lev. 23:1-44; Num. 28:2, 16; 1Chron. 23:29-31;2Chron. 2:4; 8:13, etc. 11. It was abolished with them. Colossians 2:14-17 12. The Jewscomprise nearly all those who keep the seventh day; hence "Jewish Sabbath" is anatural and intelligent designation for that day. 13. Christians almost unanimously keepthe first day in distinction from the Jews who comprise nearly all those who keep theseventh day. Hence the Jewish Sabbath is intelligent and proper again. 14. The fewChristians who keep a different day from the great body of the church keep the Sabbathwhich the Jews keep. Hence, again, it is significant and proper to designate them as thosewho keep the Jewish Sabbath. 15. But Sabbatarians say that the seventh day is called"the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10, and "my holy day," Isa.58:10, therefore it is not proper to call it "the Jewish Sabbath." Answer: Everyholy season, place, person, or article was called the Lord's as "the Lord'spassover." Ex. 12:11. Yet we read, "The passover, a feast of the Jews."John 6:4. So it is "the Sabbath of the Lord" in one place and "herSabbaths" in another. Hosea 2:11. Hence it is correct and scriptural to call theseventh day "the Jewish Sabbath."
Exodus 31:16-17, The Sabbath Perpetual
Here Sabbatarians find three expressions from which they argue that the Sabbath cannever end. 1.) "Throughout their generations." 2.) "Perpetual." 3.)"Forever." Thus: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, FOR a perpetual covenant. It is asign between me and the children of Israel forever." They ask, when will PERPETUALand FOREVER end? They show that the generation of the Jews still continues; hence theSabbath is still to be kept.
But this argument would also perpetuate all the Levitical law, circumcision, incense,passover, priesthood, etc. Thus the passover: "ye shall keep it a feast to the Lordthroughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever." Ex.12:14. It must be kept "THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS" and "FOREVER"just like the Sabbath. So of the offering of incense. "A PERPETUAL incense before theLord THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS." Ex. 30:8. Now if the Adventist argument for theSabbath based on the terms "perpetual," "forever," and"throughout your generations," is good, then they ought to keep the passover andoffer incense! This is a fair sample of the weakness of Sabbatarian arguments. The sameargument will prove the perpetuity of burnt offerings, Ex. 29:42; atonement, Ex. 30:10;washing of hands and feet, Ex. 30:21; first fruits, Lev. 23:13; meat offering, Lev. 6:18;oil for lamps, Lev. 24:3; fringes, Num. 15:38; pentecost, Lev. 23:21; feast oftabernacles, Lev. 23:41. See also Ex. 40:15; Lev. 3:17; 7:36; Num. 10:8.
The application of these terms to the keeping of the Sabbath is proof that it was tocease. Why? Because in every case where these terms are applied to the observance of anyordinance that ordinance has ceased. Adventists themselves will agree to this ineverything except the Sabbath. None of these terms are ever applied to moral laws orduties. Where do you read, "you shall not kill throughout your generations?""It shall be a perpetual statute that you shall not steal?" "It shall be astatute forever that you shall have no other gods?" This text, then, proves that theSabbath was to cease with the other Jewish ceremonies.
"Gentile Christians must become Jews, Israelites, and so come under obligation tokeep the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was given to Israel forever throughout theirgenerations." This is a favorite Adventists argument for the law and Sabbath. But seeits utter fallacy: Burnt offerings, incense, washing of hands and feet, fringes,priesthood, circumcision, passover, and all the Jewish law were also given to ISRAEL tokeep forever throughout their generations. See above. Hence the argument proves that wemust keep all these as well as the Sabbath! Do Adventists keep any of these? No.
It is argued that the Sabbath must be of perpetual obligation because it is associatedin the decalogue with commandments of that nature. But it is also associated time andagain with the ceremonial rites, types and shadows which were peculiarly Jewish. Thus:"Keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary." Lev. 19:30. "The Seventh dayis the Sabbath." Lev. 23:3. "At even is the Lord's passover." Verse 5."The feast of unleavened bread." Verse 6. In verse 38 the Sabbath is named with"gifts," "vows" and "offerings." In Lev. 24:1-8 the Sabbathis named with the offerings of oil, bread, frankincense. In Num. 28:9-10 it is classedwith the offerings of lambs, meat and drink offerings, burnt offerings, etc. In 1Chron.23:29-31, the Sabbath is classed with meat offering, sacrifices, new moons, feasts, etc.This fact offsets all the argument drawn from its place in the decalogue.
The Sabbath in the Historical Books
From Joshua to Job not a word is said indicating that the Sabbath was for any one butJews; hence no argument can be drawn from this source to bind it upon Gentile Christians.
The Sabbath in the Prophets
The Sabbath is not mentioned in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and mostof the minor prophets. Nothing is said about it by any of the prophets which can fairly bemade to apply to Christians. Several texts are applied by Adventists to our times, but itis all assumption without proof. For instance, Isa. 56 is used to prove that the GentileChristians should keep the Sabbath. It says: The stranger, Gentile, "that keepth theSabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to myholy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and theirsacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar." Verses 6, 7. If this proves thatGentiles must keep the Sabbath, it also proves that they must offer burnt offerings andsacrifices upon God's altar in the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, for all those arementioned as plainly as the Sabbath. Either, then, this applies to the Jewish age and tothose Gentile proselytes who embraced Judaism and were circumcised, Ex. 12:48, andobserved all Jewish rites; or if it applies to the Christian age, then these terms"Sabbath," "altar," "sacrifice," "my house,""my holy mountain," must be taken figuratively, for Christians do not offersacrifices, nor have a literal altar, nor go to Jerusalem to worship in that house nor onthat mountain.
So Isa. 58:12-13 is boldly applied to our days and to the work of the Adventists inurging all to keep the Jewish Sabbath. But there is not a word in all the chapter evenhinting such a thing. All this they assume without any proof and then apply the words tosuit their purpose. I did that a hundred times while with them, just as the rest did. Iknow just how they do it. As last I lost all confidence in such a reckless way of handlingthe word of God. Then I had to quit using the most of their proof texts on the Sabbath,this with others. Look at it. The whole chapter is addressed to the Jews, "the houseof Jacob," verse 1, the "nation," verse 2, and so on. Often in the Jewishage God called them to reform their lax ways in keeping the Sabbath as well as in otherthings. This is one of those cases. Isa. 66:22- 23. In the new earth "it shall cometo pass THAT from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall allflesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." This shows that the Sabbath will bekept in the next world, hence it is perpetual and so should be kept now. But it says justthe same of the new moons and places them first before the Sabbath. So if this text provesthat we should keep the Sabbath it proves we should keep the new moons also. Do Adventistskeep the new moons?
Ez. 22:26. "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things;they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showeddifference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths,and I am profaned among them." This text they also apply to their work now and to theministers who oppose the Jewish Sabbath. But there is not a word in the whole chapter thateven intimates that this applies away down here in the gospel and to Gentiles. But Godhimself applies it to the Jewish nation when they were overthrown by Babylon severalhundred years before Christ. Read the whole chapter and compare it with Neh. 13:17- 18.See verses 2, 6, 18, 19, etc. "Wilt thou judge the bloody city," etc."Behold, the princes of Israel." "The house of Israel is to me becomedross." "Therefore will I gather you into the midst of Jerusalem." Theevidence is clear that it applies there, while no proof whatever can be given to show thatit belongs away down here where Adventists apply it. I became fully convinced that it wasby such groundless assumptions as these, by roundabout and far- fetched arguments, thatthe seventh-day theory is sustained. When you look for one plain, direct statement in allthe Bible requiring Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath, it cannot be found. It has tobe INFERRED from this; QUESSED from that, and CONCLUDED from the other; all inference,nothing direct. So the Old Testament furnishes no evidence that Christians are to keep theJewish Sabbath. If such proof is to be found, it must be in the New Testament itself.
The Sabbath in the Gospels
With the opening of the gospel comes the most glorious period of the church's history.The Son of God himself stands before us clothed with all the authority of heaven. Matt28:8. God says, "Hear ye him." Matt 17:5. He came to introduce the gospel,"a new and living way," Heb 10:20, "the new covenant," "a bettercovenant," Heb 8:6,8, which sets aside and supersedes the old, verse 13. Compared tothe Jewish age it is a "great light," Matt 4:16, and the gospel church isrepresented as "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." Rev12:1. Much which was before was dark, shadowy and mysterious, is now light and plain. Rom16:25-26.
A great and radical change in the mode of worshipping God is now introduced. Manyinstitutions of the Old Testament, which were once given in the most solemn manner, and bythe authority of God himself, are no longer binding.
Now, where shall we look to find the clearest light upon these old institutions? Whereshall we go to learn the real design of them all? Where shall we turn to obtain thenecessary rules for a Christian to live by? Shall we go back to the moonlight of theJewish law? To the starlight of the patriarchal age? Or shall we come to the full sunlightof the gospel? Evidently the New Testament furnishes the clearest, and only authoritativeguide for the Christian. The Old Testament can be read and rightly understood only in thelight of the New. But it is a fact that Sabbatarians have to go back to the Old Testament,even clear back to the uncertain institutions of the patriarchal age, as their clearestand most certain authority for the seventh day. The evidence from the New Testament onlycomes in as secondary and collateral. All their strongest arguments for the Sabbath areaway back among the shadows of the Old Testament. Take these from them, and the veryfoundation has fallen out from their theory. I know that this is so, for I have gone overthe ground a thousand times. I know just how a seventh-day man feels, and where he restshis confidence. Of the New Testament he is a little shy. But is there any other Christianduty which is plainly laid down only in the Old Testament? I do not think of a single one,though in the past I tried hard and long to find it. On al other points the New Testamentis clear and full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, and bookafter book packed full of instruction on every Christian duty in every possible phase ofit. The duty or sin covered by each of the other nine commandments is directly named manytimes over in the New Testament. But the duty to keep the seventh day is not oncementioned. We arrange side by side:
"The duty of men to worship the Lord God only as taught in the first commandmentis found no less than fifty times in the New Testament. Idolatry, which is the secondcommandment, is condemned twelve times. Profanity, the third commandment, is plainlycondemned four times. Honor thy father and mother, which is the fifth commandment, istaught six times at least. Murder, which is the sixth prohibition, is found condemnedtwelve times. Theft, the eight, six times. False witness, the ninth, four times.Covetousness, the tenth, nine times. Now, with these facts before us, how can there be anydanger that the law of God will be made void? Another remarkable fact is that the fourthcommandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no Christian was ever commanded toobserve it, that no Christian was ever condemned for Sabbath breaking." Time andagain, all through the New Testament long lists of sins embracing every possible shade ofwickedness are given, but a disregard of the seventh day is never once included. Thus:Mark 7:21-22, thirteen sins; Rom 1:29-31, nineteen sins; Gal 5:19-21, seventeen sins; 2Tim3:1-4, eighteen sins, etc. How is this? Would the Sabbatarians have left it so?
Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned in the whole NewTestament. There is not one single command from either Christ or any of the apostles tokeep that day. It is not once said that it is wrong to work on the seventh day, or thatGod will bless any one for observing it. There is no promise for keeping it, nothreatening for not keeping it. No one is ever reproved for working on the seventh day,nor approved for observing it. If disregarding the seventh day is so great a crime as itsadvocates now claim, it is unaccountable that no warning against it should be given in allthe New Testament, not even once. Is all this silence merely accidental? So Sabbatarianshave to believe; but the supposition is absurd. Evidently it was left out on purpose, thesame as the pentecost, passover, new moons, sacrifices and the like.
Paul, in all his fourteen epistles never even names the Sabbath but once, and that onlyto show its abolition. Col 2:6. Contrast this with Adventists' literature!
The usual answer is that the Jews were already keeping the Sabbath, even too strictly,and therefore the Jewish Christians needed no instruction on this point. But this answeris not satisfactory. The Jews were just as strictly opposed to false gods and images, andyet over and over Christians are warned against these things. Thus Paul says:"Neither be ye idolaters," and "Flee from idolatry." 1Cor 10:7,14. Butwhere does it say, "Keep the seventh day?" or "Flee from Sabbathbreaking?" Besides, the great body of the Christian converts in the latter years ofthe gospel, were Gentiles, who had never kept the seventh day at all. Why should they notbe instructed how to keep it? Why should they be repeatedly warned against all other evilpractices of their former lives, but never warned against breaking the Sabbath as theycertainly had done before? This was a point which I was never able to answersatisfactorily to myself while I kept the seventh day. The simple and manifest fact is,that it was not intended to bind the Jewish Sabbath upon the Christian church. Hence itwas quietly allowed to drop out with the other old covenant holy days and institutions.
The arguments offered out of the New Testament for the observance of the seventh dayare few and not hard to answer. Let us examine the main ones.
Jesus Kept the Seventh Day, Therefore We Must
With Sabbatarians this argument has more weight than all others from the New Testament.It always did with me. But now I am not satisfied that, when fairly considered, there isnothing in it. Jesus was born and lived all his life under the law. Gal. 4:4. That law wasbinding till his death. Col. 2:14. Of course he ought to have kept every item of that lawtill the cross, just as he evidently did do. On this point Elder George I. Butler,Seventh-day Adventist, says: "He lived under all the ceremonies and observances ofthe law of Moses, the same as did the other Jews. Thus he was 'born under the law' andsubject to it. All his life he was careful not to break any of its provisions, and henever permitted his disciples to do it to the day of his death." The Law inGalatians, page 59.
This is the plain truth in the case. But it shows the utter fallacy of arguing that wemust keep the seventh day just because Jesus did. If we observe one institution of the Oldlaw just because Jesus did, then we should also keep all that he did; that is, live justas the Jews did under the law of Moses! For that is just what Jesus did. He instructed hisdisciples to offer gifts upon the altar, Matt. 5:23-24, sent a man to offer a gift, Matt.8:4, commanded his disciples to observe all that the scribes taught, Matt. 23:2-3, and wasvery particular to keep the passover just according to law only the day before his death.Luke 22:7-15. But who thinks now of doing all these things because Jesus did? No one.Jesus was circumcised. Do Sabbatarians circumcise? No. Then why pick out the seventh dayfrom all other holy days and rites and hold on to that while rejecting all the rest whichhe also observed? It seems as though a candid man must admit that this argument for theJewish Sabbath is not a success. If that day is binding upon Christians it must be uponsome other ground than because Jesus kept it while living as a Jew under the Jewish law.
Mark 2:27-28. The Sabbath Made for Man
The Sabbatarian use of this text is directly contrary to its plainest meaning. Jesuswas not giving a history of the origin of the Sabbath, nor defending its sacrednessagainst desecration, now showing that it was made for all the race. No such thought is thesubject of his remarks. He is not claiming the Jewish Sabbath as his day, as the dayconsecrated to himself. It was not as God, the Creator, that he claimed to be its Lord;but it was as the SON OF MAN, the representative of man, that he claimed to be lord overthe Sabbath.
Notice his premises and his conclusions: "The Sabbath was made for man, not manfor the Sabbath: THEREFORE the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." He says thatas the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, THEREFORE he, a son of man,was Lord of it. Why was Jesus Lord of the Sabbath? Because he was the Son of God and hadmade it? Not at all; but because he was the Son of man, man for whom the Sabbath was made.It is as a MAN that he claims to be its Lord. And this he said to defend his disciplesagainst the charge of breaking the Sabbath. How did it apply? Why, the Sabbath was madefor them and hence it was only their servant. They were superior to the Sabbath. Noticethe cases he used to illustrate his statement. Matt 12:3-12.
1) David went to the priest and ate holy bread which the law forbade to any butpriests. His needs were superior to that ceremonial precept.
2) "The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless." Verse5. They would slay cattle all the Sabbath day. Their service was superior to the Sabbath.
3) If a sheep fall into a pit on the Sabbath they would work hard to get him out. Thepreservation of animal life was superior to the Sabbath. I have seen Adventists work hardon the Sabbath in case of a fire to save even the goods, though the law says, "In itthou shalt not do any work." Would they dare violate the letter of any othercommandment that way? No. Then, surely, Jesus himself being judge, the observance of thestrict letter of the Sabbath law is not a matter of the highest importance. This is thelesson plainly taught here by Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath. It squarely condemns therigid interpretation of the Sabbatarians who make the Sabbath more important than manhimself for whom it was made.
4) The Sabbath was made for MAN, hence the necessities of men are above the Sabbathlaw. So, then, this text, when fairly read, gives no support to the sacredness of theJewish Sabbath under the gospel.
Matt. 24:20
As this is one of their favorite texts we will examine it. Foretelling the fall ofJerusalem which occurred forty years after his death, Jesus said that when they saw thearmies come around the city, they must flee immediately or be caught in the city, andperish with the others. Hence he said, "Let him which is on the housetop not comedown to take anything out of his house. Neither let him which is in the field return backto take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck inthose days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.For then shall be great tribulation." Matt. 24:17-21.
From this it is argued that the Sabbath would continue to be a sacred day after theresurrection. Adventists admit that it would not be a violation of the Sabbath to flee onthat day in case of necessity. Then where is there any argument in the text? If theirflight had occurred on the Sabbath to save their lives, would that have desecrated theday? They own that it would not. Then the sacredness of the day was not what Jesus had inview.
The context plainly shows that it was for their SAFETY that he was providing, not forthe keeping of the say. The proper observance of the Sabbath is not the subject at all.The dangers and tribulations of that time was the subject. Notice four points: 1) Thosewith child. 2) Those with nursing babes. 3) Fleeing in the winter. 4) Fleeing on theSabbath. If they had to flee suddenly, in haste, and without preparation, even withouttheir ordinary clothes, women with child or with little babes, or persons in the cold ofwinter would be liable to suffer or die. So in all these three cases Jesus refers to theinconvenience and danger of their flight; and this is exactly why he mentions the Sabbath.On that day the gates of the city would be shut and so hinder them greatly of not detainthem entirely. The gates of all the villages through which they must pass would be closed.The Jews would suspect them and arrest them as traitors. Hence it would be dangerous,almost impossible, to flee on that day. A candid person can see that this is all there isto that text. Of this I became convinced sometime before I gave up the Sabbath, and so Istopped using it.
Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1-2. "The Sabbath" is the Day Before "The First Dayof the Week
"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of theweek." "When the Sabbath was past, ***the first day of the week." Accordingto this the Sabbath, after the death of Christ, is still the day before the first day ofthe week. Hence the first day of the week on which Christ rose was not the Sabbath yet.Answer: All the days in the week, in the month, and in the year, still continued to becalled by their old Jewish names for many years after Christ; but it does not follow thatthey continued to be sacred days, for Paul expressly states that all those feast days, newmoons, and Sabbath days were nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14,16; Gal. 4:10-11; Rom. 14:5-6.Take three examples: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come," Acts 2:1."Then were the days of unleavened bread." Acts12:3. "Went into thesynagogue on the Sabbath day/" Acts 13:14. Here, long after the cross, we have thesame old names for three of the Jewish holy days, viz: Pentecost. Days of unleavenedbread, and Sabbath day. Are all these days still holy days because they are still calledby their former names? If so, then we ought to observe Pentecost and the days ofunleavened bread as well as keep the Sabbath. So there is no force in the argument fromthe use of the Word Sabbath after the cross. The resurrection day was not called theSabbath in the New Testament nor by Christians for several hundred years after Christ. Itwas called "Lord's Day." Rev. 1:10.
"THE SABBATH" was the name of the Jewish rest day, "which was a shadowof things to come." Col. 2:16-17, but the resurrection day is another day entirely.It is called "the first day of the week," "the eighth day," or the"Lord's Day." It is only in an accommodated sense that it is called the Sabbathnow as we use the words "altar," "sanctuary," "temple,""sacrifice," "Israel," etc.
Luke 23:56. The Woman "Rested the Sabbath Day According to the Commandment"
This was after Christ died; hence it shows that they thought that the Sabbath was stillto be kept. They were the followers of Jesus and knew what he taught. Answer: But this wasbefore Jesus rose from the dead, before they knew anything about his resurrection, andbefore they had any idea of the great change which the gospel was to make in the serviceof God. Their old Jewish idea still blinded their minds so that they could not at oncetake in the nature of what Jesus had really come to do. Just before this Jesus said:"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John16:12. So he had not tried to explain all these less important matters to them; but hesaid that he would, after the resurrection, send them the Holy Spirit to guide them intoall truth. John 16:13. It was not till after the Holy Ghost came upon them at Pentecostthat they began to comprehend the true nature of the gospel. So it is no proof that theJewish Sabbath is binding on Gentiles because the Jewish women kept it while Jesus wasdead and in his grave. Turn to Acts 1:14, and 2:1, and we find all these same women fiftydays after the resurrection still carefully keeping "the day of Pentecost,"another Jewish holy day. But do our Sabbatarians keep Pentecost because these women keptit? No, but they should if they keep the Sabbath because those women kept it. This showshow groundless that argument is.
The Sabbath 59 Times in the New Testament
They say, the fact that the Sabbath is named 59 times in the New Testament is proofthat it was still of great importance and should be kept. Well, the temple is mentioned inthe New Testament 115 times; circumcision, 55 times; sacrifices, 38 times; the passover,28 times, etc. Then I suppose we ought also to have all these over in the gospel!
Sabbatarians think they have a fair argument in the Acts. Here the seventh day isalways called "the Sabbath," and it may be that the Jewish Christians stillobserved it, and met with the Jews in worship on that day. From this it is concluded thatall Christians should keep that day, too. This is based upon the false assumption thatwhatever customs and laws of the old covenant were still observed for a few years by theJewish Christians after the resurrection, must be binding upon the Gentile church now.
A careful examination of what the disciples did really do for many years after theresurrection will show that they kept all the Mosaic law, including feast days, theSabbath day, sacrifices, circumcision, vows, and the whole Jewish ritual. But they didthis as Jews, according to their national law and long established custom. That they didnot do so as a Christian duty is manifest from the fact that Gentile Christians were notrequired to observe these things. Acts 15:19-28; 21:25. "As touching the Gentileswhich believe, we have written and concluded that they observed no such things."Every mention of the Sabbath in Acts, without a single exception, is in connection withthe Jewish worship on that day. Acts 13:14-15, 42-45; 15:21; 16:13; 17:1- 2; 18:4. The lawand the prophets were read, and Jewish worship conducted as usual. Certainly the disciplescould not hold distinctively Christian meeting here under these circumstances. They mustassemble by themselves to worship Jesus and have the Lord's supper, and that is just whatwe find them doing on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. There is no record of a singlemeeting of Gentile Christians upon the seventh day, nor of Jewish Christians, except inthe Jewish worship.
Consider a few facts as to why the Jewish Christians did not immediately give up theobservance of the Mosaic law. How carefully and gradually Jesus unfolded his newdoctrines, even to the chosen apostles. To the multitude he spoke only in parables"as they were able to hear it." Mark 4:33. Had Jesus at once and plainly toldthe people the radical change which he had come to make in the Jewish system of worship,they would have killed him immediately. Even the apostles would doubtless have left him.During all the ministry of our Lord, nothing stands out more prominently than the factthat he was gradually, but cautiously, preparing the minds of his disciples for the greatchange which his gospel was destined to make in the worship of God. The great obstacles hehad to contend with were their narrow views, their tenacity for the forms and ceremoniesand letter of the law, and Jewish ideas of God's kingdom. That he was to take the throneof David, subjugate the world to Israel, and carry on the Jewish mode of worship with thetemple service - this idea was so firmly rooted in the minds of even the apostles, thatthey could not understand Jesus even when he plainly told them to the contrary. Hence theSaviour simply left them to outgrow these ideas as the nature of his gospel more fullydawned upon them, after his resurrection and ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit.Just before Jesus died, he said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but yecannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide youinto all truth." John 16:12-13. How often he had to say to them, "O fools, andslow of heart to believe." Luke 24:25. "Are ye also yet withoutunderstanding?" Matt. 15:16.
During all the ministry of Christ he never once stated directly that any of the Jewishrites would be abolished, not even sacrifices, the temple service, circumcision, the feastdays, or anything. Yet he well knew that all these were soon to end, and designed thatthey should. Neither the people nor the disciples were then prepared for such anannouncement. Hence he left these things for them to learn later. It is in the epistles ofPaul that these changes are distinctly stated, just where we find the Jewish Sabbathabrogated.
Forty days after the resurrection still found them clinging to their old Jewish idea ofthe temporal reign of Jesus at Jerusalem. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore againthe kingdom to Israel?" Knowing that it was impossible to correct their wrong notionsby a mere statement, Jesus left them to outgrow these errors as they learned more of thegospel. Now follow them through the book of Acts, and observe how long and tenaciouslythey held on to all the observances of the old Jewish law, not only the Sabbath, but allthe temple service and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. On Pentecost we find them keeping thesacred day with the other Jews. Acts 2. As late as ten years after the resurrection theywere "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11:19. Not asermon had they thought of preaching to a Gentile till God, by a special miracle, sentPeter to Cornelius. Acts 10. As late as this Peter was scrupulously regarding the Mosaiclaw of meats. He said, "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."Verse 14. And he designed to keep right on observing it. And when the Holy Spirit cameupon the Gentiles, the disciples were astonished "because that on the Gentiles alsowas poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Verse 45. When he returned to Jerusalem,the whole church was in an uproar over it. "And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to menuncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Acts 11:2-3.
Up to this time, then, we find the church at Jerusalem, with Peter at its head, stillkeeping the Jewish law concerning food, and refusing to eat with Gentiles. Now study thegreat council at Jerusalem, held over twenty years after the resurrection. Acts 15. Notonly did the whole church in Judea keep the entire Mosaic law in all its rites, includingcircumcision, but some of them endeavored also to force it upon the Gentile converts.Verses 1-19. But through the influence of Paul, this move was defeated. If it had not beenthat, in the providence of God, Paul was raised up to oppose it, the whole Christianchurch would have been placed under the bondage of the Mosaic Law. As it was, that councilfreed only the Gentile converts from obedience to Moses' law. Acts 15:19,23; 21:25. Allthe Jewish Christians still kept it.
Even as late as A.D. 60, or nearly thirty years after the cross, we still find thewhole Jewish church in Judea strictly keeping the law of Moses as to circumcision,offerings, vows, shaving the head, etc. Not only did they themselves observe all theserites of the old law, but they required all Jewish Christians throughout the world to dothe same. When Paul went up to Jerusalem only a few years before his death, they demandedof him a pledge that he himself also kept these rites. Read carefully Acts 21: 20-26.
These words show conclusively that the Jewish Christians observed all the rites of thelaws of Moses as late as that, which was but a few years before the fall of Jerusalem. Allchurch historians agree that the Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day,even for some time after the fall of Jerusalem, as we have seen.
Philip Schaff, the greatest of living authors, in his History of the ApostolicalChurch, page 118, says: "So far as we know, the Jewish Christians of the firstgeneration, at least in Palestine, scripturally observed the Sabbath, the annual Jewishfeasts, and the whole Mosaic ritual, and celebrated in addition to these the ChristianSunday, the death and resurrection of the Lord, and the holy supper. But this union wasgradually weakened, and was at last entirely broken by the destruction of the temple.***The Jewish Sabbath passed into the Christian Sunday." Elder Waggoner, Adventist,says: "Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whosetestimony regarding facts no one would call in question," Replies to Canright, page132. Good. Now let them accept Dr. Schaff's statement and cease their denials.
Elder Butler, Adventist, truly says: "Indeed, it may well be doubted whether alarge portion of the early church who were Jews before conversion ever fully realized thescope and extent of the gospel in setting aside those laws peculiarly Jewish. They clungto them, and were zealous for them long after they were abolished at the cross. To Paul weare indebted, through the blessing of God, for the only full explanation of the properrelation of these laws to the plan of salvation." Law in Galatians, page 8.
How much, then, does it prove in favor of the Jewish Sabbath to find that it was stillcalled "the Sabbath," or that it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even byPaul himself? Just nothing at all; for by the same argument, as we have seen, we mustobserve the passover, pentecost, offer offerings, make vows, shave your heads, becircumcised, and keep all the rites of the Mosaic law the same as those disciples did foryears.
The Apostle Paul and the Keeping of the Sabbath Day
Seventh-day Adventists try to make an argument for the Jewish Sabbath from Paul'sexample. They count up some 84 Sabbaths which they claim he kept, and they say that if hekept it we ought also. I used to think there was great force in this argument and haveused it scores of times to convince others. But I became satisfied finally that the wholeargument was a fallacy. Let us examine it.
1. Paul was a Jew, but we are Gentiles.
2. Paul was brought up in all the observances of the Jewish law. Acts 22:3. We werenot.
3. The great desire of Paul's heart was to win his Jewish brethren to Christ. To dothis he was willing to die, yea even to be accursed himself. Rom. 9:3-4.
4. To win these Jewish brethren he was very cautious not to do anything, as far as hecould possibly avoid it, which would prejudice them against him and so cut off his accessto them.
5. As these Jews were very zealous in the observance of all Jewish law, Paul knew thathe must himself also keep this law if he were to obtain any access to them. Hence he says:"Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are underthe law [the Jews], as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.""And this I do for the gospel's sake." 1Cor. 9:20,23. See what he did in thecase of Timothy. "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcisedhim because of the Jews which were in those quarters; for they knew all that his fatherwas a Greek." Acts 16:3. Paul wanted Timothy to help him among the Jews, but he knewthat the Jews would not listen to him if he were not circumcised. So he circumcisedTimothy to gain the Jews, though he said, "Circumcision is nothing." 1Cor. 7:19.For just the same reason he kept the Pentecost, Acts 18:21; 20:16; shaved his head, Acts18:8; made offerings, Acts 21:20-26; and lived the same as the Jews did, though he knewand taught that all these things were done away.
Now suppose it could be shown that Paul always kept the Sabbath, would that prove thathe regarded it as obligatory upon all Christians, specially the Gentile Christians? Surelynot. To them he wrote very plainly that they were not to keep the law concerning meats,drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbath days. See Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:1-5; Gal. 4:10.He taught with regard to all these just as he did about circumcision, Gal. 5:2, that noneof these were necessary, yet he himself circumcised Timothy.
We will now examine every text where Paul is said to have kept the Sabbath. Acts13:14-15. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. After thereading of the law and the prophets" he was invited to preach to them, which he did.This was with the Jews in Jewish worship, in the Jewish synagogue, on the Jewish Sabbath.Paul as a Jew joined them in this, in order to preach the gospel to them. So, verses42-46, on the next Sabbath he met with them again in the same place for the same purpose.This was two Sabbaths Paul kept. Acts 16:13, "on the Sabbath he went out of the cityby a river side where prayer was wont to be made," or rather where there was aPROSEUCHE, a Jewish house of prayer. So the Syriac and Greek. Here he found Jewish womenat worship, and preached Jesus to them. This was the third Sabbath he kept. Acts 17:1-2.Paul "came to Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Jews, ***and three Sabbathdays reasoned with them." Here again it was in the Jewish worship among the Jews intheir synagogue on their Sabbath. Three more Sabbath here, six so far. Acts 18:1-4. Paulis again among the Jews "and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuadedthe Jews and the Greeks." Same as before, his Sabbath keeping is every time while heis among the Jews in their Sabbath worship. But how many Sabbaths did he meet with themhere? Verse 11 says: Paul remained there in Corinth one "year and six months,"which would be 78 weeks. Hence Adventists say he kept 78 Sabbaths here. These added to thesix before make 84. But verses 6 and 7 put a different face on the matter. Instead ofreasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath all this time, he withdrew from the Jews andsaid, "Henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Then he went into the house ofJustus near the synagogue. So there is no evidence that he preached in the synagogue morethan a few Sabbaths. So their 84 Sabbaths that Paul kept dwindled down to ten or a dozenand all these were with the Jews in Jewish worship. And this he himself explains bysaying, "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews." 1Cor.9:20.
Not one single case can be found where Paul kept the Sabbath in a Christian assembly,nor is it ever mentioned in any way in connection with Christian meetings, while it issaid that the disciples met on the first day of the week. Mark this: "Wherever theapostles entered the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to preach, it was before theChristian church was planted in such places."
Paul Did Nothing Against the Custom of the Jews, Hence Kept the Sabbath
In Acts 25:8, Paul says he had done nothing "against the law of the Jews,"and in Acts 28:17 says, he had "committed nothing against the people or customs ofour fathers." From this it is claimed that he must have kept the Sabbath, for thatwas the law and custom of the fathers. True, but so it was their custom to circumcise, tooffer sacrifices, to keep the new moons, yearly feasts, etc. Hence Paul must have done allthese. Shall we then do all these because Paul as a Jew did? Hardly. Notice that nearlyevery argument applies equally as well to all the Jewish law and would bind that wholesystem on Christians!
1. We now come to the direct statement of Paul that the Sabbath was abolished: Col.2:14, 16, 17. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, whichwas contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. * * * Let no mantherefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon,or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is ofChrist." With other Jewish ordinances, the Sabbath was blotted out and nailed to thecross; therefore no man is to judge us about keeping "the Sabbath days." Thestatement is positive and plain. When I kept the seventh day this text always perplexed meas it does my Advent brethren now, say what they will. Paul directly names "theSabbath" or "the Sabbath days," for there is no difference, as among theshadows which have passed away.
2. It is said by some that "the Sabbath days," plural number, is not the sameas "the Sabbath," singular number, hence is not the weekly Sabbath. This is agroundless objection, for both the singular and the plural numbers are used indifferentlyfor the weekly Sabbath. Thus Greenfield's Greek N. T. Lexicon says: "Sabbaton. TheSabbath, * * * both in the singular and plural." Bagster's Greek Lexicon says:"The Jewish Sabbath both in the singular and plural." So plain is this fact thateven Elder Smith, Adventist, is compelled to admit it though he tries to save his theoryby excepting Col. 2, and Acts 17:2, but without reason. He says: "When it [Sabbaton]is used in the plural form [excepting Acts 17:2 and Col. 2:16], it means just the same asif it had been written in the singular." Greek Falsehood, page 8. Col. 2:16, is noexception to the rule. In Acts 17:2, the word THREE is what marks the plural. The RevisedVersion properly renders Col. 2:16, in the singular, thus: "Let no man thereforejudge you in respect of a Sabbath day," singular number. Sawyer's translation says:"In respect to a feast, or new moon, or Sabbath," singular. The Bible Unionsays: "Of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath," singular.
A few quotations will show that both the singular and plural numbers are used for theweekly Sabbath. "My Sabbaths [plural] shall ye keep for it [singular] is a signbetween me and you." Ex. 31:13. This is the weekly Sabbath. "Keep mySabbaths." Lev. 19:3. "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23:38.Adventists argue that this is the weekly Sabbath. "Blessed is the man that * * *keepeth the Sabbath," "the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths." Isa. 56:3,4.Either singular or plural, no difference. "I gave them my Sabbaths to be asign." Ez. 20:12. This is the weekly Sabbath, as Adventists well know. "On theSabbath days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath" [singular].Matt. 12:5. Here we have in the same verse both the plural and singular used for theweekly Sabbath. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Matt. 12:10."Taught them on the Sabbath days." Luke 4:31. "Three Sabbath days reasonedwith them." Acts 17:2. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of theSabbath days." Col. 2:16.
Who can read this list of texts and not be profoundly impressed that by "theSabbath days" of Col. 2:16 Paul means just what that language means in all the othercases? Of course he did, and no other reasonable application can be made of it.
3. In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2:16, he uses not only the same word which isalways used for the weekly Sabbath, but exactly the same form of the word used in thefourth commandment itself! I will give the Greek word for "Sabbath days" in Col.2:16 and other texts where the same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, isused for the weekly Sabbath. Col. 2:16. "Let no man judge you in respect to theSabbath days," Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural.
Ex. 20:8,10, fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day (Greek, Sabbaton,genitive plural) to keep it holy." "But the seventh day is the Sabbath [Greek,Sabbate, accusative plural] of the Lord." Here it will be seen that Paul uses thesame Greek word, letter for letter, that is used in the decalogue. Hence he surely meantthat very Sabbath day. Notice, further, that in each case in the fourth commandment wherethe word "Sabbath" occurs it is plural in the Greek.
So if the use of the plural in Col. 2 shows any thing, it shows that the Sabbath of thedecalogue is meant. Moreover, the Revised Version renders Ex. 20:10, and Col. 2:16,exactly alike. Thus: "The seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord." "Let noman judge you in respect of 'a Sabbath.' " Plainly, then, Col. 2:16, refers to theSabbath of Ex. 20:8-11.
Further, Sabbaton, genitive plural, the form of the word used in Col. 2:16, is the oneoften used in other texts for the weekly Sabbath. Thus: Ex. 35:3, "Kindle no fire * ** upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton]. Lev. 23:38. "Besides the Sabbaths[Sabbaton] of the Lord." Lev. 24:8. "Every Sabbath [Sabbaton] he shall set it inorder." Num. 15:32. "Gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton]Numbers 28:9. "On the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day two lambs." Deut. 5:12. Fourthcommandment again, "Keep the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Isa. 58:13. "Turnaway thy foot from the Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Matt. 28:1. "In the end of theSabbath," [Sabbaton] Luke 4:16. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath[Sabbaton] day." Acts 13:14. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton]day." Col. 2:16. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the Sabbath[Sabbaton] days."
Unless a man is blinded by a pet theory, he must see that Col. 2:16 does surely meanthe weekly Sabbath, as in all the other texts where the same word occurs.
4. The only word ever used in the Bible, for the weekly Sabbath is the very one Pauldid use, Sabbaton. So if he had meant to name that Sabbath, what else could he have saidthan just what he did say, the Sabbath days? Why, then, deny that he means just what hesays when he could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath?
5. The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament 60 times. Seventh-Day Adventists admitthat in 59 out of these 60 cases it means the weekly Sabbath; but in the 60th case, whereexactly the same word is used both in Greek and English, as we have seen, they say it mustmean something else! Isn't that remarkable? Hear them: "In the New Testament theSabbath of the Lord is mentioned 59 times, and those local Sabbaths, which expired bylimitation and ceased at the cross, are mentioned once." Scripture References, p. 9.Strange that the Sabbath means the Sabbath 59 times and the 60th time it don't!"Jewish feasts are often spoken of in the New Testament but, not one of them anywhereis called a Sabbath or credited with the nature of a Sabbath." The Sabbath for Man,p. 544.
6. "The feast days and new moons" of Col. 2:16, include all the holy days ofthe Jews except the weekly Sabbath; hence there was nothing else left to which it couldapply but that Sabbath. The entire list is given in Num. 28 and 29.
7. But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that Col. 2:16, does refer to theweekly Sabbaths is the fact that exactly the same list of holy days here given by Paul isgiven about a dozen times in the Old Testament, where we know it means the seventh day.
Turn to Num. 28 and 29, and you have a detailed law as to just what offerings shall bemade on each day of the whole year. The first were the daily offerings of "twolambs," day by day, for a continual burnt offering. "The one lamb shalt thouoffer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at the even." Verse 3 and4. The second were the offerings on the sabbath. "And on the sabbath day two lambs ofthe first year without spot," verse 9 and 10. None will deny that this was the weeklysabbath. Third, in the very next verse come the new moons. "And in the beginning ofyour months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the Lord," verses 11-15. Fourthcomes the annual feast days. "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is thepassover of the Lord," verse 16. Then follows a complete list of all the annual feastdays, closing with these words, "These things shall ye do unto the Lord in your setfeasts," Num. 29:39.
Here we have the law for the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly offerings; or, those oneach day, on the weekly sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the yearly feast days. Now readthe following texts, and notice how this list of daily offerings, offerings on thesabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, as laid down in the law of Moses, isrepeatedly referred to in almost exactly the words of Col. 2:16.
1 Chron., 23:3O, 31: "To stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, andlikewise at even; and to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in thenew moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded untothem." Here is a direct reference to the daily offerings, offerings on the weeklysabbaths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 28 and 29. Can any one doubtthat "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, the same as there? Certainlynot.
2 Chron. 2:4: "Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, todedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening [daily], on the sabbaths [weekly],and on the new moons, [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord."Precisely the same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly sabbaths are theones named. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose that Solomon would name all the otherand minor holy days, but say nothing about the chiefest of all days, the weekly sabbaths.Every candid man would admit that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths,and so they are in all the passages which follow.
2 Chron. 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day [daily again], offeringaccording to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons[monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly], three times in the year." Same list andorder as before.
2 Chron. 31:3: "The morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offeringsfor the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in thelaw of the Lord." The same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly offerings,just in the order they would naturally come, and just as given "in the law of theLord." Num. 28 and 29. But if the sabbaths are not the weekly sabbaths, then the Lordnames the daily, monthly and yearly offerings, but skips the weekly offerings. Everythinking man knows that such an interpretation is false. But it is the only way thesabbaths can be saved from Paul's list, Col. 2:16, for that is the same as all these. Asthe object in these passages is to mention the service of God which must be performed oneach of the holy days, it would be absurd to suppose that all the other sacred days in thewhole year would be carefully mentioned time and again, while no reference whatever itmade to the weekly sabbaths, the most important and the most numerous of all the sacreddays.
Neh. 10:33: "For the shew bread, and for the continual meat offering, and for thecontinual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new, moons, for the set feasts."Same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Either the weekly sabbaths are meanthere, or else reference to the worship of God on the Sabbath is always studiously avoided,while all the rest is carefully mentioned. The evidence is too plain to mistake which.
Ezek. 45:17: "Offerings in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in thesabbaths." Here are named exactly the same days that Paul gives in Col. 2:16, and inthe same order, yearly, monthly, weekly.
Hosea 2:11: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her newmoons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Same list of holy days that wehave had over and over, where we know that sabbath meant the seventh day.
Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect ofa feast day, (Rev. Version), or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Here, asbefore, are the yearly, monthly and weekly holy days just as laid down in the law where weknow the weekly sabbaths are meant. It is evident that Paul had in his mind those lists ofholy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is included.
The words "the sabbath days" would certainly embrace the weekly sabbathsunless they were especially named as excepted. But no such exception is made. Hence wemust apply the term as it is used in the law, to the seventh day.
Hosea 2:11, is a plain prophecy that all these holy days should cease just as we knowhas happened in fact; and in Col. 2:16, is proof that they were nailed to the cross.
8. TESTIMONY OF OTHERS ON COL. 2:14-17
Bunyan: On this text, John Bunyan, than whom no man ever studied his Bible moreclosely, says: "Here also as he [Paul] serveth other holy days he serveth theSabbath, he gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it. Nor hath theapostle (since he saith, or of the sabbath), one would think, left any hole out at whichmen's inventions could get." Again: "The old seventh-day Sabbath is abolishedand done away." Bunyan's Complete Works, pages 899, 900.
Dr. Scott says: "Doubtless, this last related principally to the weekly Sabbath,which, as observed on the seventh day, was now become a part of the abrogated Jewishlaw."
The Pulpit Commentary on this text says: "The Sabbath days' referred to the JewishSabbath which was always observed on Saturday." "If the ordinance of the Sabbathhad been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian church, it would have beenquite impossible for the apostle to have used this language."
John Wesley: "In respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly JewishSabbath."
Dr. Lee, Methodist: "The apostle refers to the seventh day Sabbath and he givesthem clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to observe it. * * * By a 'holyday' and the 'new moon,' he included all other feasts and rests which might be calledSabbaths, leaving nothing but the seventh day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbathdays." Lee's Theology, page 375.
9. That upon which Seventh-Day Adventists rely to save this text from applying to thesabbath is the assertion that there were several yearly or annual sabbath days, and thatPaul's language must apply to these instead of to the weekly sabbaths. Thus Elder Andrews,in his "History of the Sabbath," says, "There were seven annualsabbaths," and then he names all the Jewish feast days, as the pentecost, day ofatonement, etc., and cites Lev. 23. It is true that in our English version the wordsabbath is applied to four of these feast days. But we turn to the Greek, in which Paulwrote, and find that the word for "sabbath" is sabbaton. Is that the term usedwhere the word sabbath is applied to the annual feast days? No, indeed, except in justbarely one instance. The day of atonement is called a sabbath (sabbaton) in the Greek.Lev. 23:32. "In the Old Testament Hebrew none of those feast days are ever termed aSabbath, save the day of atonement." Sabbath for Man, page 544.
The Hebrew word for sabbath is shabbath. In only this one instance is it ever appliedto any of the annual festivals. But the word "sabbath" in the English version,when applied to these annual feasts, is from the Greek term ANAPAUSIS, and in the Hebrewfrom shabbathon. These words should not be translated "sabbath," but should berendered "rest," as they are in the Revised Version. Thus all these texts readin the New Version: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, there shallbe a solemn rest unto you." Lev. 23:24. "On the first day shall be a solemnrest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest," verse 39. So also in the Englishversion of the Hebrew used by the Jews these words are translated rest, not sabbath. Thus:"In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall ye have a rest," notsabbath, verse 24. "On the first day shall be a rest, and on the eighth day shall bea rest," verse 39.
Hence, except the weekly sabbaths, among all the feast days and holy days of the OldTestament only one single day in the whole year is ever called a sabbath. So it is notcorrect to speak of "the annual sabbaths," much less to say that there wereseven of them. There was just one, and no more, and this one was included in the annualfeast days. Even Elder Andrews confesses that "the annual sabbaths, were part andparcel of these feasts and could have no existence until after the feasts to which theybelonged had been instituted. Thus the first and second of these Sabbaths were the firstand seventh days of the pascal feast. The third annual sabbath was identical with thefeast of pentecost." History of the Sabbath, page 86. By his own confession the dayshe calls annual sabbaths were all included in those yearly feasts and could have noexistence separate from them. Feast days (heortes) is the term embracing all those days,as we have seen. Hence "the sabbath days" (sabbaton) must apply only to theweekly sabbaths. Or, to say the least, this term being pre-eminently, almost exclusively,applied to the weekly sabbaths, must include them any way, whether it did any others ornot.
10. Seventh-Day Adventists try to make a difference between "the Sabbaths of theLord," Lev. 23:38; Ex. 20:10, and "her Sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. They say that"her Sabbaths," were the Jewish Sabbaths, yearly feast days; but that the Lord'sSabbath is never called her Sabbaths. The assertion is contrary to facts.
Why, were the yearly holy days her days? Did the Jews appoint them? No; the Lordappointed them just as he did the sabbath, and gave them to Israel to keep, just as hegave them the sabbath to keep. Hence, from one point of view they are the Lord's, but fromanother view they are her days. God's, because he commanded them; hers, because given tothem. "I gave them my sabbaths." So we read of nearly every sacred institutionof the Bible. In one place it is "the Lord's" and in the next it is"hers," "yours" or "theirs," but the same institution allthe time. Thus we read of the temple: "Mine house," Isa. 56:7; "yourhouse," Matt. 23:38. Of the sacrifices: "The sacrifices of the Lord," Lev.10:13; "my offering, and my bread for my sacrifices," Num. 28:2; "yourburnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes," Deut. 12:6. Of the law:"My law," Jer. 6:19; "your law," John 10:34. Now notice particularlythat the feast days are spoken of in exactly the same manner that the sabbath is; that is,"my feasts," and "her feasts," "my sabbaths" and "hersabbaths." Thus: "The Lord's passover," Ex. 12:11; "the feast of theLord," Lev. 23:4; "the sabbaths of the Lord," verse 38; "myfeasts," verse 2; "my sabbaths," Ex. 31:13; "a feast unto theLord," Lev. 23:41; "the holy sabbath unto the Lord," Ex. 16:23; "herfeast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths," Hosea 2:11. These quotations aresufficient to show the fallacy of trying to make a distinction between "mysabbaths" and "her sabbaths." The same argument would prove that "myfeasts" and "her feasts," "my sacrifices" and "yoursacrifices," "my house" and "your house," etc., were entirelydifferent. But everybody knows better. These experiences apply to the same thing fromdifferent standpoints; the sabbaths of the Lord as appointed by him; her sabbaths as keptby them; and this is the whole of it.
11. Paul represents these things as "blotted out," "nailed to thecross." Col. 2:14. It is said that this could not apply to the Sabbath which wasengraved in the stones in the decalogue, as you could not blot out nor nail up this. Theanswer is easy. To blot out and to nail up are only used as an illustration. Anciently adocument that had been canceled, or abolished, was rubbed or blotted out, or a nail wasdriven through it, as now a conductor punches a ticket to show that it has been used up.As an illustration it could be applied to laws written in any manner, no matter what. Suchobjections are unworthy a candid man. Paul says these things were against us; but it issaid that the Sabbath was not against us; hence it cannot mean that. Answer: 1. Paul saysit was; that ought to settle it. 2. The Jewish Sabbath was the great sign of Judaism. Ez.20:10-13; Deut. 5:15. As such, it carried with it that whole system and so was againstChristians.
12. It is said that the weekly Sabbath was never associated with meats, drinks, feastdays, etc., as in Col. 2:16. This is a great mistake as we have already seen. It isclassed with these a score of times. See Lev. 23:2-6; Num. 28: 3-11; 1 Chron. 23:29-31,etc.
13. But it is argued that as "the sabbath days" of Col. 16, "are ashadow of things to come," verse 17, and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial ofcreation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same, for thesabbath could not point both ways. But is not this a mere assertion without any proof? Howdo we know that it cannot point both ways? The passover was a memorial of theirdeliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that event. Ex. 12:11-17. Yet it wasalso a shadow of Christ. Col. 2:16-17. "Even Christ our passover is sacrificed forus," 1 Cor. 5:7. So all these annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yetall were memorials also of past events, as all know. But who would ever have thought ofthis if the apostles had not said so? If, then, these feast days could be both memorialsand types, pointing both ways, so can the, Sabbath. Paul says plainly that the Sabbathdays are a shadow of things to come; and one plain statement of inspiration is worth athousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument in Heb. 4:1-11,that the seventh day is a type. For forty years they have tried to explain away this text, and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; but there it stands and mocks alltheir theories. The Sabbath is a type, for inspiration says so. Again, it is said that theSabbath was instituted before the fall, but types could not have been instituted tillafter the fall. How do you know that they could not be? Where does the Bible say so? Petersays of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, butwas manifested in these last times, for you," 1 Peter 1:20.
The revelator says, "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," Rev.13:8. If, then, Christ before the foundation of the world was ordained to die, then theSabbath might have been designed even before the creation of the earth, as a type ofChrist. Dr. Watson says: "It is used as an expressive type of the heavenly andinternal rest." Theol. Inst. Vol. II, page 509. The Pulpit Commentary says: "TheSabbath of the Jews was typical." On Col. 2:17. Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The truthis, the Sabbath is considered as a type." On Ex. 20:8. Even Elder Andrews,Seventh-Day Adventist, says: "When the Creator gave existence to our world, did henot foresee the fall of man? And, foreseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purposeof redeeming man? And does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained inthat of creation?" History of the Sabbath, page 151. Exactly; and so the Sabbath as atype of that redemption might have been given in Eden according to their own showing. So,on close inspection, every argument of our Seventh-Day brethren on Col. 2 fails them.
14. By a false and ungrammatical construction of the relative pronoun "which"in Col. 2:17, Adventists try to exclude the weekly Jewish Sabbath from the text. They makethe pronoun which refer only to "the Sabbath days," making it read, "Those,Sabbath days which are a shadow." This they say, implies that there are otherSabbaths which are not a shadow, that is the seventh day. But the Greek word for"Sabbath days" is Sabbaton, genitive plural, while the word for"which" is HA, nominative plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbathdays, as any scholar knows. "Which are a shadow" relates to the whole list givenin verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbaths. The revised versionrenders it, "a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow."Not simply the Sabbath alone, but all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase,"which are a shadow," applies to each item in verse 16. Does Paul, then, mean tosay that only certain feast days, certain new moons, and certain Sabbaths were shadows,while there were other feast days, other new moons and other Sabbaths which were notshadows and so were excepted from his list? No, he makes no exception whatever, neither offeasts, moons, or Sabbaths. All were included, none were excepted. Hence as Paul includedevery feast day, and every new moon, so he also included every Sabbath of the OldTestament, and that took in the weekly Sabbath as the chief of all, to say the least. Sothe last peg on which to hang the Jewish Sabbath goes down.
Professor A. M. Weston, President of Eureka College, Ill., says very truly: "Ifthe Sabbath does not look to Christ for its underlying principle, then it is the oneimportant observance of the Old and New Testament that fails to do so." The Evolutionof a Shadow, page 16. We know that there was in Eden one type of Christ, that was Adam,for the Bible says so, Rom. 5:14. "Adam * * * who is the figure of him that was tocome." Figure is from the Greek TUPOS, type. "Who was the type of him that wasto come." Syriac, Diaglott, Sawyer, Living Oracles, and Bible Union Translations.Hence types were instituted in Eden. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be excepted from thetypes on that ground.
In Gal. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holydays of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid ofyou." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference tothat law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster tobring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come weare no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. 3:24, 25. That law has ended at the crossas Paul said in Col. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, doye not hear the law?" Gal. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Gal. 5:18. So,then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief ofall. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearlyfeasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times.
To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the observance of the Jewish holy days wasnot to be regarded. "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth everyday alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5.
Dr. Potts, Methodist, says: "That the Sabbath question entered into Paul'sreasonings on the occasion is evident from Rom. 14:1-6." The Lord's Day Our Sabbath,page 27. These were the days enjoined in the law for it is of the law that he treats allthrough the book of Romans. He makes no exception of the Sabbath day, but says plainly" every day." Only a few verses before he has quoted five of the tencommandments, Chap. 13:9, showing that he included the days of the decalogue. It does notavail to say that Paul means only the annual Sabbaths because he mentions eating meat andherbs. I have already proved that the weekly Sabbath was associated with these time andagain.
What proves that Paul did intend to set aside the Sabbath, as his words naturally mean,is the fact that nowhere does he ever in all his instructions to the churches say one wordin favor of keeping the Sabbath. Time and again he enjoins every other duty, but never aword about keeping the Sabbath in all his fourteen letters. Most of those to whom he wrotewere Gentiles who never had kept the Sabbath and hence needed instructions in it if theywere to keep it. But not a word does he say to them about it; though he does command themabout the first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.
But it is said that this view of Paul's language abolishes all holy days and leaves thechurch without any rest day. The answer is easy and manifest. Paul was treating of the oldinstitutions which had been nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. Hence his language has noreference to the new institutions of the gospel, of which there might have been a dozenholy days, so far as these texts are concerned.
Why Not Found Out Before?
If Sabbatarians are right on the Sabbath question, then the whole Christian church hasbroken the Sabbath for the last 1,800 years, and has kept Sunday, "a popishinstitution," "the mark of the beast," in its stead. During these long agesall the holy men, martyrs, reformers, commentators, historians and Christian scholars,with all their seeking of God, searching the Bible, and studying history, never discoveredthis great mistake! Is it reasonable to believe that the entire church, during all itshistory, has been trampling upon one of God's most holy commandments? Can it be that thewrath of God is now to be poured out upon the church for keeping the same day that allothers have kept for 1,800 years? Would God have blessed the reformers and his church ashe has, if Sunday-keeping is such a fearful crime against God as is now claimed?
Now, just to think that the whole church of Christ, immediately after the death of theapostles, should fall into this fearful sin and error, and practice this crime withoutrebuke during the entire history of the church, till just a few days before Jesus comes,and then only a few find it out and change. According to the Seventh-Day Adventists,Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, with all the church of Christ for hundreds of years,committed two fearful sins each week of their lives; they broke the holy Sabbath, the mostimportant commandment in the decalogue, and kept Sunday, the mark of the beast! Yet Godhas let the whole thing go on without any protest, till the last minute of time, and noweverybody who does not accept this "new light," is to be hopelessly damned fordoing what Christians generally have always done! In all candor, this is a pretty big pillto swallow.
But Sabbatarians say that this has nothing to do with the case. "Our appeal is tothe Bible alone. The Bible plainly teaches it, and we will go by that." So they say,and so they believe; but the fact is, it is only their interpretation, their explanation,of the Bible which makes it say so. Did you ever know a sect under heaven, even thewildest and most fanatical, who were not always on hand ready to "prove it all by theBible"? Yes; they know that they are right beyond a doubt, "because the Biblejust says so." They will argue you blind, and grow more confident every day, andalways end by saying, "It is true, not because I say so, but because the Bible saysso." Meet a Mormon, and he has the Bible at his tongue's end. He "proves it allby the Bible." So the Shaker, and the Swedenborgian, and the Universalist, and therest of them, "prove it all by the Bible." How many persons and sects havearisen at different times with a perfect furor of enthusiasm over some new idea besides"the old, old story of Jesus and his love." No matter what harm it does to otherChristians and to the gospel, "the Bible teaches it, and that is enough. When we givethis up we will give up the Bible too." So they go on till time alone demolishestheir theory, and then they do indeed give up the Bible and all, while precious souls arelost.
Keeping The Jewish Sabbath A Failure
Sabbatarians began in England in the time of the Reformation, over three hundred yearsago. They had many able men, ministers and writers. They published many books, discussedthe subject widely, and made many converts. Here they had a fine field and a fair start.How did Sabbath-keeping succeed? What have they accomplished in England? Three hundredyears ought to be long enough to tell whether it is a success or not. Let Elder Andrewstell the sad story: "In the seventeenth century eleven churches of Sabbatariansflourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be found in variousparts of the kingdom. Now but three of these churches are in existence! And only remnants,even of these, remain!" Hist. Sabbath, p. 491. Since he wrote the above, two more outof the three, I believe, have expired, and only one little company of less than tenmembers survives! Elder A. sorrowfully asks, "To what cause shall we assign thispainful fact?" The cause is evident; God is not in it. It comes to naught every timeit is tried. Three hundred years hence the same mournful requiem will be chanted over thegrave of Seventh-Day Adventism.
Now look at the history of the Sabbatarian effort in America.
In 1664, over 200 years ago, the Seventh-Day Baptists began teaching that doctrine inAmerica at Newport, R. I. The first church was organized Dec. 23, 1671. See "Manualof the Seventh-Day Baptists," pages 39, 40. From that time on they industriouslytaught the observance of the seventh day, both in America and other lands, even as far asChina, by preaching, by tracts, books and periodicals, till the religious world isfamiliar with their views. They were numerous enough to organize a general conference asearly is 1802. See Hist. S. D. Bap. Gen. Conf., pages 15, 238, or any cyclopedia. Theyhave had academies, colleges, and universities; learned men, able writers, and zealousworkers. What have they accomplished? Almost nothing. They now number only about 8,000,and are not holding their own, but are losing ground every decade. They can not even holdthe increase of their children. Largely their youth abandon Saturday for Sunday. Forconvenience they mostly colonize together, and so have little influence on the world. Totheir praise be it said that they are an excellent people, and free from any fanatical orother heretical notions. Here again the seventh day has had the fairest possible chance ofsuccess. Its advocates are intelligent, highly educated, respected, and live in this freeland and age of investigation. Why has it not succeeded? That it has not they themselvesmust admit. These sober, stubborn facts should have weight with us. Sabbatarian brethren,stop and weigh these things fairly. What is the use of wasting life contending for what isa practical failure?
In 1846, nearly seventy years ago, Seventh-Day Adventists began teaching the Sabbath.They have practiced it zealously, devoted everything to it, poured out treasures by themillion, and filled the land with their literature. What have they accomplished? Theynumber only about 100,000 now. Have 4,000 workers in the field and spend $2,000,000 yearlyyet again only about 4,000 yearly, or one to each worker! Half of these are from otherchurches. The system lacks vitality and gospel power.
Contrast with the above the work and success of the First-Day Baptists. What a grandwork they have done for Christ and souls in the last two hundred years. Instead numbering8,000, as the Seventh-Day Baptists do, they number 5,000,000. As a body they are just aspious and devoted as the Seventh-Day Baptists. Then look at the Methodist and otherSunday-keeping churches, and see how God has blessed them all. Experience shows thatkeeping the Jewish Sabbath dwarfs, cripples, and unfits a church for gospel work.
If, now, keeping Saturday is so highly pleasing to God, why does he not prosper itmore? If Sunday observance is such a sin in the sight of God, why does he so remarkablybless those who persist in it?
Luther And The Sabbath
Even the Adventists acknowledge the greatness of Luther in piety and a deep knowledgeof the word of God. Mrs. White says of him: "Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing nofear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the holyscriptures," etc. "Angels of heaven were by his side and rays of light from thethrone of God revealed the treasures of truth to his understanding." GreatControversy, pages 94, 97. Good. Now hear Luther. Carlstadt, a zealous and learnedSabbatarian, laid his arguments for the seventh day before Luther, who examined them. Hereis Luther's decision in his own words: "Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write furtherabout the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath -that is to say,Saturday- must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should cometo be circumcised; for that is true and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessaryto keep one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem all necessary, andkeep them all." Hist. Sabbath, p. 457.
So then, the "light" on the Sabbath question was given to Luther, and herejected it, just as the great body of Christians do now. The other leaders of thereformation were likewise familiar with the arguments for the seventh day, but, as ElderAndrews confesses, they "as a body were not friendly to such views." Hist.Sabbath, p. 460.
These facts show how untrue it is to say that people have been unacquainted with thisSabbath question before.
John Milton On The Sabbath
So the great John Milton, author of "Paradise Lost," has thoroughly discussedthe whole Sabbath question, using the same arguments as we use now to show the abolitionof the Jewish Sabbath. I quote a few sentences from his "Treatise on ChristianDoctrine," Vol. 1, Book 2, Chap. 7. "It is evident from more than one passage ofscripture that the original Sabbath is abrogated." "If, then, the commandment ofthe Sabbath was given to those alone whom God brought out of the land of Egypt and out ofthe house of bondage, it is evidently inapplicable to us as Christians." He arguesthe question this way at considerable length.
Richard Baxter On The Sabbath
This great divine, the author of "Saints' Rest," "Call to theUnconverted," etc., in 1671, wrote his "Divine Appointment of the Lord'sDay" against the Seventh-Day advocates of his times. Gilfillan, says: "Baxter(1671) and Bunyan (1685) wrote their interesting defences of the Lord's day for relievingthe perplexities with which some good people in their time were distressed in consequenceof the proselyting zeal of Saturday Sabbathists." The Sabbath, p. 144. so theSabbatarians over 200 years ago were giving the same "light" and doing the sameproselyting work as now. They were answered by such men as Baxter, Bunyan, Milton, etc.
I give a few words from Baxter: "It is also confessed, that the universal churchfrom the days of the apostles down till now have constantly kept holy the Lord's day inthe memory of Christ's resurrection, and that as by the will of Christ delivered to themby or from the apostles; insomuch that I remember not either any orthodox Christian, orheretic, that ever opposed, questioned, or scrupled it, till of late ages." Part 2,Chap. 18. Of him even Mrs. White says: Baxter, a man "of talent, education, and deepChristian experience, stood up in valiant defense of the faith once delivered to thesaints." Great Controversy, page 175. Yes: such men as these stood up and opposed theJewish Sabbath heresy.
John Bunyan
Hear Mrs. White on Bunyan: "John Bunyan breathed the very atmosphere ofheaven." Great Controversy, page 174. Well, now hear Bunyan: "As for the seventhday Sabbath, that, as we see, is gone to its grave with the signs and shadows of the OldTestament; yea, and it has such a dash left upon it by apostolical authority, that it isenough to make a Christian fly from it for ever. 2 Cor. 3" "Again the apostlesmites the teachers of the law upon the mouth, saying, 'they understand neither what theysay nor whereof they affirm."' Complete Works, page 915.
If ever a man this side the apostles lived near to God, drank into his spirit, and knewthe true intent of the Bible, that man was Bunyan, author of the immortal work, Pilgrim'sProgress. He met these Sabbatarians and their work in his day. He studied the subjectfully and wrote a book against them from which I have quoted.
He regarded them just as they are regarded now, as legalists, blind zealots, anddisturbers of the church.
So all this talk that the church did not have the light on the Sabbath question tillAdventists arose to give it is contrary to facts as the above proves. It is simply the oldarguments of 200 years ago rehashed.
The foundation of the Sabbatarian error, I believe, is the idea that "thelaw," in all the strictness of the old letter, is binding on Christians. Hence, theirconstant theme is the law, law, law. They preach it ten times as much as they preachChrist. Unfortunately, a false theory of the law taught by some other churches has ledthem into this sad error. For twenty-eight years I was held in that "bondage."Now that I have found my way out, if I can help others, I shall rejoice.
The following simple facts with regard to the law helped me out of Adventism and I havenever known anyone to get out of it any other way. I believe it to be the correct answerto the Saturday Sabbath error. I write for candid readers. They will examine my argumentsfairly and allow others to do the same, even if they should not agree fully with everyposition. As a result of the present agitation of the Sabbath question, we ought to expecta better understanding of the whole subject than heretofore. Forty years of investigationand discussion of the question have firmly settled me on the following propositions. Theyare in harmony with the best men and theologians of this and past ages; hence nothingoriginal on my part.
Antinomianism
Antinomians, from ANTI, against and NOMOS, law, against law, is a term applied to thosewho maintain that Christians are under no obligation to keep the law of God or to do anygood works. If they commit any kind of sin it will not hinder their salvation at all ifthey only believe in Jesus. Salvation is wholly of faith without any regard to a man'sdeeds. See any cyclopedia. This is an abominable doctrine, subversive of the gospel; yetSeventh-Day Adventists brand all as Antinomians who do not agree with them as to what isthe law of God. I am as much opposed to Antinomianism as they. I believe in strictobedience to law, in keeping the commandments of God, and in the necessity of good works,as strongly as they do. Luther vehemently opposed Antinomianism and yet taught theabolition of the Mosaic law. It is unfair and unjust for Adventists to call peopleAntinomians who abhor that doctrine. We plead for a pure life, good works and obedience toGod, as necessary to salvation. Hence it is a falsehood and a slander to represent us asAntinomians. Men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the positionof their opponents fairly. Bunyan, Judson, and a host of such men have repudiated theSabbatarian idea of the law, and yet have been holy men. I am not afraid to stand withthem.
Even Elder Waggoner says: "As to whether the Saviour abolished the tencommandments and with them the Sabbath, is a theological question; it is only a matter ofScripture interpretation." Replies to Elder Canright, page 164. Very well; then menmay differ on this question and still be honest Christians. I will now lay down a fewpropositions concerning the law, which seem to me so plain and well supported by theBible, that all must agree with them.
PROPOSITION 1. "THE LAW" EMBRACES THE WHOLE MOSAIC LAW, MORAL,CIVIL AND CEREMONIAL. The term, "the law," when used with the definitearticle and without qualifying words, refers "in nine cases out of ten, to the Mosaiclaw, or to the Pentateuch." Smith's Bible Dictionary, article Law. Largely theAdventists use the term, "the law," for the ten commandments only. They hang upa chart of the decalogue and constantly point to it as "the law, Matt. 5:17;"the law of the Lord," Ps. 19:7; "the law of God," Rom. 7:22. This istheir fundamental error on the law. I affirm that "the law" included the wholesystem of law given to the Jews at Sinai, embracing all those requirements, whether moral,civil or ceremonial, decalogue and all. Look at the term "law," in aconcordance, or in any Bible lexicon, dictionary or cyclopedia. "The law"commonly included the whole of the five books of Moses. Even Elder Butler is compelled tomake this confession: "The term, "the law,' among the Jews generally includedthe five books of Moses, thus including the whole system, moral, ritual, typical andcivil." Law in Galatians, page 70. That is the truth exactly. Dr. John Kitto, in hisCyclopedia of Religious Literature, article Law, says: "If, however, the word lawalone is used it is almost invariably equivalent to the law of Moses." "The lawis especially embodied in the last four books of the Pentateuch."
Now bear in mind this one simple fact, wherever you find the term "the law,"and you will have no trouble with Sabbatarian arguments on "the law."
Take a few examples of the use of the term "the law." 1 Cor. 14:34. Women"are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Where does the lawsay this? Gen. 3:16. So Genesis is in the law. Again: "The law had said, Thou shaltnot covet." Rom. 7:7. Where? Ex. 20:17. So Exodus is in the law. Once more:"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Matt. 22:36. Jesus thenmakes two quotations from the law; first, "Thou shalt love the Lord with all thyheart." This is taken from Deut. 6:5. So Deuteronomy is in the law. Second,"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This is from Lev, 19:18. So Leviticusis a part of the law. And this: have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath daysthe priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" Matt. 12:5. It isfrom Num. 28:9. These then, embrace all the five books of Moses as "the law."Observe a little where the law is spoken of and you will soon see that it refersindiscriminately to each and all of the books of Moses as "the law." Of courseany verse in any of these books is quoted as "the law," because it is a part ofthe law. So then the ten commandments are quoted as the law because they are a part of thelaw.
Again, "the law" embraces all parts of the law, moral, civil or ceremonial.Thus the ceremonial precepts: "The parents brought in the child Jesus to do for himafter the custom of the law." Luke 2:27. That is, to offer a sacrifice. Verse 24.Moral precepts: "The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless anddisobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers."1 Tim. 1:9. This is the decalogue. Civil precepts: "Commandest me to be smittencontrary to the law?" Acts 23:3. Notice that every time it is simply the law."Gamaliel, a doctor of the law." Acts 5:34. Of what law? Was he simply a doctorof some part of the law, as the moral, or civil, or ceremonial precepts? Every intelligentman knows that "the law," of which he was doctor or teacher, was the wholePentateuch, decalogue included. The law, then, is the whole Jewish law, in all its part.This one point, clearly settled, destroys nine-tenths of all the Seventh-Day Adventistargument for the Jewish Sabbath.
The Two Laws
PROPOSITION 2. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS TWO SEPARATE LAWS GIVEN TO THEJEWS. To sustain their doctrine Sabbatarians have invented a theory of two lawsgiven at Sinai; one the moral law, the other the ceremonial.
Adventists attach the utmost importance to their theory of two laws as well they may;for if this is wrong their cause is lost. Elder U. Smith says: "No question,therefore, more vital to the interest of Sabbath-keepers can be proposed." Synopsisof Present Truth, page 258. But that they are wrong on this vital question is very easilyshown.
1. "Moral law," "ceremonial law." Adventists use these two terms asfreely as though the Bible was full of them; yet, strange to say, the scriptures make nosuch distinctions, never speak of one law as "moral" and of another as"ceremonial." Adventists severely criticise those who happen to use anunscriptural word or phrase; yet they themselves do the very thing commonly, as in thiscase. It would be amusing to hear one of them try to preach on the "two laws"and confine himself to Bible language! He could not possibly do it. If there were twodistinct laws given to Israel, so opposite in their nature, it is strange that there is norecord of it, no reference to it in the Bible. If one was abolished and the other was not,strange that Paul should not make the distinction when he has so much to say about thelaw. Why did he not say, "we establish the moral law"? or, "the ceremoniallaw was our schoolmaster"? No, he just says "the law" and leaves it there.He seems not to have been quite as clear on that point as Adventists are! On this pointKitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Article Law, says: "Neither Christ nor theapostles ever distinguished between the moral, the ceremonial, and the civil law, whenthey speak of its establishment or its abolition."
2. The two laws contrasted. Adventists have drawn up a long list of things which theyclaim are true of the "moral" law and an opposite list which can apply only tothe "ceremonial" law. These two they contrast and make out two laws. Thus ElderSmith: "Moral law: "Was spoken from Sinai by the voice of God and twice writtenupon tables of stone by his own finger." "Was deposited in the golden ark.""Related only to moral duties." Synopsis of Present Truth, page 266. Of coursethis was just the ten commandments, nothing more, nothing less. So here we have their"moral law." Now here is the other one: "The ceremonial law: "Wascommunicated to Moses privately and was by Moses written with a pen in a book. Deut.31:9." "Was put into a receptacle by the side of the ark. Deut. 31:26.""Was wholly ceremonial." Same page.
Hence everything not found in the decalogue belongs to the ceremonial law andeverything Moses himself wrote in the book of the law placed in the side of the ark is"wholly ceremonial." Deut. 31:26, reads: "Take this book of the law and putit in the side of the ark." The decalogue was in the ark, the book of the law was bythe side of the ark. We enquire, then, how much "the book of the law" contained.The answer is easy: it contained all the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Thus 2 Kings 14:6, says it "is written in the book of thelaw of Moses," and then quotes Deut. 24:16, as that book of the law. 2 Chron. 35:12',says: "It is written in the book of Moses," and refers to Lev. 3:3. Ezra 6:18,says: "It is written in the book of Moses," and refers to Num. 3:6. Joshua 8:31quotes Ex. 20:25, as that which "is written in the book of the law." 1 Cor.14:34 refers to Gen. 3:16, as "the law." Dr. Scott on Deut. 31:26, says"This (book) appears to have been a correct and authentic copy of the five books ofMoses."
So what they call the ceremonial law contains scores of precepts as purely moral as anyin the decalogue. Read these: "Thou shalt not vex a stranger." "Ye shallnot afflict any widow or fatherless child." Ex. 22:21, 22. "Thou shalt notfollow a multitude to do evil." Ex. 23:2. "Ye shall be holy." "Thoushalt not go up and down as a tale bearer among thy people." "Thou shalt notavenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself." Lev. 19:2, 16, 18. Thou shalt not respect persons.""Thou shalt be perfect." Deut. 16:19, 18, 13. Are these precepts, and scoreslike them, to be classed as ceremonial because God did not write them on a stone but gavethem to Moses to write in a book? Surely not. Then the nature of a precept was notdetermined by the way it was given. God gave them all at different times as it pleasedHim.
As we have seen, "the law" embraces the "whole law." Gal. 5:3. Ofcourse, in that law, some precepts refer to moral duties, other to civil, and others toceremonial but all are only different parts of the same law, called, as a whole, "thelaw." Thus Jesus quotes from Lev. 19, as "the law." See Matt. 22:36-40. Nowread the whole chapter, Lev. 19, and you find moral, civil and ceremonial precepts allmingled together, and often in the same verse. Adventists, to sustain their theory, haveto go through this chapter, as they do through the whole Bible, and cut and carve, andsplit hairs, and label one sentence "the moral law," another "theceremonial law," etc. This is what is properly termed "the scrappingsystem." It does great violence to the Scriptures, wresting them out of their evidentmeaning.
In no place can they find their ceremonial law given by itself. They have to pick itout here and there in scraps. The "book of the law," which was placed in theside of the ark, Deut. 31:24-26, is pointed to as the ceremonial law. But this "bookof the law," as we see, embraced the whole five books of Moses.
It contains all of the ten commandments word for word twice repeated. Ex. 20 and Deut.5. Elder G.I. Butler himself makes this confession: "The "book of the law,'which was placed in the side of the ark, or at the side of it, contained both the moraland ceremonial laws." Law in Galatians, p. 39. That drops the bottom out of thetheory that the moral law was "in the ark, and the ceremonial law in the side of theark," as they usually claim. So, on close examination, every text on which they relyfor two laws will fail them. That the "book of the law" did contain moralprecepts is settled by Gal. 3:10. "It is written, cursed is every one that continuethnot in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Where in thebook of the law is this written? In Deut. 27:26. Turning there we have a curse againstimages, verse 15, disobedience to parents, verse 16, adultery, verse 20; murder, verse 24;bribery, verse 25; then comes the verse quoted as "the book of the law." So ifthe decalogue contains moral law, then the book did too. This shows the utter fallacy oftheir theory of two laws.
The following passage alone overturns the two law theory of Adventists: "Master,which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lordthy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is thefirst and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighboras thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:36-40.
1. These two great commandments were "in the law." 2. But neither of them isfound in the decalogue. 3. Both of them are in what Adventists call the ceremonial law. 4.Neither of them was spoken by God, nor written by him, nor engraved on stones, nor putinto the ark. Both were given by God to Moses privately and he wrote them with a pen inthe book of the law which was placed in the side of the ark. And yet these two preceptsare the greatest of all. Jesus said of the first one that it is "the first of all thecommandments." Of the two he said, "There is none other commandments greaterthan these." Mark 12:29, 41. And on these two hang all the law. So, then, thegreatest commandments are in the book of the law, not on the tables of stone. How utterlythis demolishes their two law argument. It shows that the mere fact that the tencommandments were spoken by God, written on stone, and placed in the ark, is no proof thatthey were superior to those given through Moses in the book of the law.
We will examine a few more of their contrasts of the two laws as they arrange them.Thus: "1. Moral: Existed in Eden before the fall. Ceremonial: Was given after thefall. 2. Moral: Was perfect. Ps. 19:7. Ceremonial: Made nothing perfect. Heb. 7:19. 3.Moral: Contains the whole duty of Man. Eccl. 12:13. Ceremonial: "Stood only in meatsand drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances.' Heb. 9:10."
1. Where do they read that the decalogue was given in Eden? Nowhere. This they assumenot only without proof, but against the plain record of Ex. 19 and 20 that it was given atSinai. So their very first comparison is a failure.
2. The law is perfect, Ps. 19:7, and again, the law made nothing perfect. Heb. 7:19.This they regard as one of their clearest proofs of the two laws. But where is the proof?Does it follow that if the law is perfect it will or can make sinners perfect? If itcould, then, as Paul says, righteousness should be by the law," Gal. 3:21, and"then Christ is dead in vain." Gal. 2:21. The law could be perfect and yet failto make anybody perfect. So there is no proof of two laws here after all.
3. Eccl. 12:13 is quoted as referring to the ten commandments alone and then it isasserted that these contain every duty of man. Both statements are fallacious. There arescores of duties we owe to God and men not even hinted at in the decalogue. Then there isnot a particle of evidence that Eccl. 12:13 refers alone to the decalogue. It manifestlyembraces all God's commandments on all subjects. Look at the second quotation, Heb. 9:10.It does not refer to any law whatever but is speaking of the services of the priests inthe temple, which service "stood only in meats, drinks," etc. Read it. Thustheir "two laws" are made out: 1. By pure assumptions. 2. By misapplications ofscripture. 3. By detached phrases here and there taken out of their proper connection. SoI could go through their whole list and show that it proves no such contrast as theyclaim.
But they assert that such opposite things are said of "the law," that itcannot be the same law all the time. This method of proving two laws by contrastingparticular expressions about the law when spoken of from different standpoints would makebad work with the Bible if urged on other subjects. Paul said he was "a Jew,"Acts 21:39, and again that he was "a Roman," Acts 22:25; two Pauls. So Christ is"a Lion" and "a Lamb," Rev. 5:5, 6. "The everlastingFather," Isa. 9:6. And born of a woman, Luke 2:7; Prince of Life, Acts 3:15, yet diedthrough weakness, 2 Cor. 13:4; a child, Isa. 9:6; and yet God, Heb. 1:1-8; two Christs. Itwould be much harder to reconcile the apparently opposite things said of Christ, than itwould be the different things said about the law. There were different sides to Christ'snature, yet he was but one person. So there were different sides to the law, but it wasonly one law for all that. Viewed in the light of its ultimate design, viz.: to preparethe way for Christ, Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:23-25, in its spirit, Rom. 7:6; in itsrighteousness, Rom. 8:3, 4; it was "holy and just and good," Rom. 7:12. Butviewed from the side of its mere letter, Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6, 7; its numerousrites, ceremonies, penalties and rigorous exactions, it was "the ministration ofdeath," 2 Cor. 3:7; and a "yoke of bondage," Gal. 5:1-3; Acts 15:1-10. Thisis the true explanation of their "two laws." Further, it is not true that therewas nothing ceremonial in the decalogue. The weekly Sabbath was the chief ceremonial ofall the Jewish worship. See this proved in the first part of chapter nine. Also seechapter eighteen on the decalogue. In Chapter XXI I have examined every text they use onthe two laws.
PROPOSITION 3. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ALONE ARE NEVER, CALLED "THELAW OF THE LORD" NOR THE "LAW OF GOD." Sabbatarians constantly usethese two terms, applying them to the decalogue alone. With them "the law ofGod" and "the law of the Lord" is just the decalogue and nothing more. Theyare the only ones who keep God's law, as all others break the Sabbath, the seventh day.But now notice this fact which I know to be the truth, after a most thorough examination.The word law occurs in the Bible over 400 times, yet in not one single instance is thedecalogue as a whole and alone called "the law." It is never in a singleinstance called "the law of the Lord," or "the law of God." Of coursethe ten commandments are a part of the law of God, but only a part, not the whole. Examinea few texts: Luke 2:22. "The days of her purification according to the law ofMoses;" verse 23, "It is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeththe womb;" verse 24, It is "said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves;" verse 27, "To do for him after the custom of the law." Here"the law," "the law of the Lord," and "the law of Moses,"all mean the same thing, viz: the law touching the birth of a son. Again, sacrifices,offerings, Sabbaths, new moons and feasts are all required "in the law of theLord." Thus: "He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for theburnt offerings, to-wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burntofferings for the Sabbaths, and for the new moons and for the set feasts, as it is writtenin the law of the Lord." 2 Chron. 31:3. Scores of texts like these could be quoted,showing that "the law of the Lord" includes sacrifices, circumcision, feast daysand all the Jewish law. So "the law of God" is not simply the decalogue, but thewhole law of Moses. Read Neh. 8:1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 18. "The book of the law ofMoses," "the law," "the book of the law," "they read in thebook of the law of God," "the law which the Lord commanded by Moses,""the book of the law of God." The law of God, then, includes the whole law ofMoses.
No Sabbatarian, therefore, keeps "the law," "the law of God," or"the law of the Lord," for if he did he would offer sacrifices, be circumcised,and live exactly as the Jews did. So all their talk about "keeping the law"amounts to nothing, for none of them do it. Moreover in their attempt to keep a part ofthat law they thereby bring themselves under obligation to "keep the whole law,"as Paul argues in Gal. 5:3. But as none of them keep the whole law, they bring uponthemselves the curse of the law, by constantly violating one part while attempting to keepanother. This is the very point which Paul made against Judaizing legalists of his day."For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: For it is written,cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of thelaw to them." Gal. 3:10. That is, the person who keeps one precept of the law justbecause the law says so, thereby acknowledges that the law is binding on him. Then if heneglects some other part of the law, he thereby becomes a transgressor of the very law heprofesses to keep. This is exactly what Sabbatarians do. They keep the Sabbath because thelaw says so and thereby become "debtors to do the whole law." Gal. 5:3. Thenthey neglect many things in the same law and so are under the condemnation of the law.Gal. 3:10. But Christians do this or that, not because the law says so, but because sosays the New Testament.
PROPOSITION 4. "THE LAW" WAS GIVEN BY MOSES AND THE "LAWOF MOSES" INCLUDES THE DECALOGUE. Not that Moses was the author of it, butit was through him God gave it to Israel. This is stated so distinctly and so many timesthat it is useless to deny it. Thus: "For the law was given by Moses," John1:17. "Did not Moses give you the law?" John 7:19. "The law which the Lordhad commanded by Moses," Neh. 8:14. "God's law which was given by Moses,"Neh. 10:29. This includes the decalogue. "Moses said, Honor thy father and thymother," Mark 7:10. This is the fifth commandment. Again: "Did not Moses giveyou the law and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" John7:17. The law against killing is here called the law of Moses.
In Heb. 10:28, it is said that "he that despised Moses' law died without mercyunder two or three witnesses." Persons were put to death for violating the decalogue.See Deut. 17:6. They were put to death for breaking the Sabbath, Ex. 31:14, blasphemy,theft, and the like. Hence the decalogue is included in the "law of Moses." Butin verse 24 they said ye must "keep the law." So in one verse it is "thelaw of Moses" and in another verse it is simply "the law": Hence there isno difference between "the law" and "the law of Moses."
In Josh. 8:30, 31, we read: "Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God ofIsrael in mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel,as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which noman hath lift up any iron." It says that this about the altar was written in the"book of the law of Moses." Now turn to Ex. 20:25, the very chapter where thedecalogue is found, and there you have the text referred to. "And if thou wilt makeme an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy toolupon it, thou has polluted it." This proves beyond denial that the ten commandmentsare in the law of Moses.
PROPOSITION 5. "THE LAW" WAS NOT GIVEN TILL THE TIME OF MOSESAND SINAI. The texts above quoted prove this. Thus: "The law was given byMoses." John 1:17. "Did not Moses give you the law?" John 7:19. "Foruntil the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses." Rom. 5:13-14. The entrance of the lawis here located at Moses. Again it is located under the Levitical priesthood. "Iftherefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people receivedthe law." Heb. 7:11. So the giving of the law is located "430 years after thecovenant with Abraham." "And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmedbefore of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannotdisannul." Gal. 3:17. This brings us to the very year the Jews came out of Egypt andarrived at Sinai. "And it came to pass at the end of 430 years, even the self-sameday it came to pass, that all of the hosts of the Lord went out from the land ofEgypt." Ex. 12:41. Beyond dispute, then, what the Bible calls "the law" wasnot given till Moses, 2,500 years after Adam, or nearly half the history of the world.
PROPOSITION 6. THE LAW IS NO WHERE FOUND TILL MOSES.No copy ofthe law nor any reference to it can be found till Moses. Of course God's great moral andspiritual law, condemning every sin and requiring every righteous act - that existed fromAdam, nay, from eternity. But what in all the Jewish Scriptures is known as "thelaw," as drawn out in a code on Sinai, whether in a book or on the tables of stone,this certainly did not exist till Moses. The whole dispute between Paul and the Judaizersof his day was over this law. See Romans, Galatians and Acts 15 and 21. The question waswhether "the law," that which was written in "the book of the law,"Gal. 3:10, and "engraved in stones," 2 Cor. 3:7, was to be kept under thegospel. Paul said, No; they said, Yes. Sabbatarians now stick for the law of Sinai as didthe Judaizers of old. To say that the principles of the law existed before Sinai, does notprove that the law existed. These principles could have been taught to Adam and hisdescendants in a different form from the law as afterwards given at Sinai. But where doyou find the law or even one of the ten commandments, as worded on Sinai, before thattime? Nowhere.
The various principles and precepts, moral, ceremonial, and typical, which hadpreviously been taught in different ways, were now gathered into one code and worded so asto adapt them, for the time being, to the circumstances of the Jewish nation. As thusworded, certainly this law had never been given before.
PROPOSITION 7. THEIR FATHERS DID NOT HAVE THE DECALOGUE AS WORDED ON THETABLES. This Moses directly states. Deut. 4:12, 13, says God spoke to them fromheaven, and declared to them "his covenant," "even ten commandments,"Chap. 5:2, 3, says: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord madenot this covenant with our fathers, but with us." Then he repeats the tencommandments as spoken from heaven. Verses 4-22; That the main principles and requirementsof this code were taught to the fathers in some way no one can doubt; but that the fathershad the law as worded and arranged at Sinai is directly denied by Moses, as above.
PROPOSITION 8. THE LAW WAS GIVEN ONLY TO THE JEWS. This is somanifest in every item of the law, that it needs no argument to prove it. Moses says,Deut. 4:8, that no nation has a law so good "as all this law which I set before youthis day." Then he names the ten commandments as a part of it. Verses 10-13."This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel." Verse 44.Before whom? Israel, not the Gentiles. So again, Chap. 5:1. "Hear, O Israel, thestatutes and judgments which I speak in your ears." Then follows the decalogue. So itis a hundred times over all through the law. It is addressed to the Jews and to them only.The very wording of the law shows it was designed for them only. The decalogue isintroduced thus: "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt,out of the house of bondage." Ex. 20:2. To whom is that applicable? Only to theJewish nation. Neither angels, Adam, nor Gentile Christians were ever in Egyptian bondage.Then this law is not addressed to them. To whom was the law given. Let Paul answer."Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and thecovenants, and the giving of the law." Rom. 9:4. It was given to Israel."Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for allIsrael, with the statutes and judgments." Malachi 4:4. The law was "for allIsrael," and them only.
All these things show that this was a national law worded to fit the condition of theJews at the time.
PROPOSITION 9. THE GENTILES DID NOT HAVE THE LAW. This has beenproved already; but Paul directly says so. Rom. 2:14. "For when the Gentiles, whichhave not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law,are a law unto themselves." This is too plain to need arguing. The Gentiles did nothave the law. Paul says so directly and that ought to settle it, and does. To understandand obey the great moral principles of that law is one thing, to be under the letter, theexact wording of the law as given in detail on Sinai, is quite another, as we will seefurther on.
PROPOSITION 10. THE REWARDS AND PENALTIES OF THE LAW WERE ALL TEMPORAL.There are no promises of future rewards, nor threatenings of future punishments in all theMosaic law. The learned Bishop Warburton has fully demonstrate this in his "DivineLegation of Moses." Every careful student of that law must be aware of this featureof it. The reason is evident: it was a national, temporal law, given for a national,temporal purpose. As a sample of all, see Deut. 28:1-19. If they keep the law, they shallbe blessed in children, in goods, in cattle, in health, etc. If they disobey, they shallbe cursed in all these. Stoning to death was the penalty for theft, murder, etc. Hencethat was the "ministration of death written and engraved in stones," 2 Cor. 3:7,and "is done away," verse 11.
Paul states that the promise of Christ and the future inheritance was made to Abrahamfour hundred and thirty years before the law was given. From this he argues, and forcibly,too, that the keeping of that law was not necessary in order to obtain Christ and theinheritance. Verses 16-18. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. Hesaith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Andthis I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, whichwas four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promiseof none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but Godgave it to Abraham by promise." So to the Romans he wrote: "For the promise,that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through thelaw, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs,faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect." Rom. 4:13,14.
This plainly teaches that the law was not given with reference to the futureinheritance. Certainly Abraham did not keep a law which was not given till hundreds ofyears after he died. But Abraham is the father of all the faithful, and not simply ofthose who were "of the law." Rom. 4:13-16. This point alone ought to open theeyes of those who contend so earnestly for the keeping of that law as necessary tosalvation. We are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3:29, and "walk in the steps of ourfather Abraham," who was never under the law. Rom. 4:12-16. We are under the covenantof promise made to Abraham 430 years before the law, Gal. 2:15-19, and not under thecovenant of law from Sinai, which is bondage. Gal. 4:21-26.
PROPOSITION 11. GOD'S ETERNAL LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS EXISTED BEFORE THELAW OF SINAI WAS GIVEN. This proposition is self-evident. Surely God had a law bywhich to govern his creatures, both angels and men, long before Sinai. But "thelaw," as worded in the decalogue and in "the book of the law," was notgiven till Moses, 2,500 years after creation. Hence moral obligation did not begin withthat law, nor would it cease if that law was abolished. "All unrighteousness issin." 1 John 5:17. And "sin is the transgression of the law." Chap. 3:4.This text is used by Sabbatarians to prove that every possible sin is always a violationof the ten commandments. But, 1. "The law" is the whole Mosaic law, not merelythe decalogue. 2. A correct translation entirely spoils this text for them. The word lawis not in the text in the original. The revised version gives it correctly. "Sin islawlessness." This is the true meaning of the text. Sin is lawlessness, a disregardfor some law, but not necessarily always the same law. Thus: "The angelssinned." 2 Pet. 2:4. But they did not violate the law of Sinai, for it was not giventill thousands of years after they fell, and they were not under that law any way.
Adam "sinned" long before that law was given. So Paul says, Rom. 5:12-14.Cain sinned, Gen. 4:7. The Sodomites were "sinners," Gen. 13:13, and vexed Lotwith their "unlawful deeds," 2 Pet. 2:8. Surely none of these violated "thelaw," which was not given till Moses, hundreds of years afterwards. To say that theymust have violated the principles of that law is not to the point. When the Jews killedStephen, Acts 7:59, they violated the principles of the law of Michigan, which forbidsmurder; but did they violate the "law of Michigan"? No; for it was not given for1800 years after. And they were not under it any way. So neither the angels, nor Adam, northe Sodomites could have transgressed the law of Sinai, for it was not yet given. SoAbraham kept God's laws, Gen. 26:5, but surely not "the law which was four hundredand thirty years after," Gal. 3:17. All this clearly shows that God had a law beforethe code of Sinai was given.
Jesus, under the gospel 1500 years later, in naming the commandments, gives themneither in the same words nor in the same order as found in the decalogue. Further, hemingles with them some precepts from the book of the law as of equal importance with theten commandments. Thus: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bearfalse witness, defraud not, honor thy father and mother. Mark 10:19. This shows that themere form and order of the commandments is of no consequence as long as the idea is given.So the two editions of the decalogue in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5 vary much in the wording; yetone is as good as the other. This shows that the exact wording is not essential.
In whatever form or manner God chose to communicate his will to men, this would be"his commandments, his statutes, and his laws." Gen. 26:5. Paul says: "God,who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by theprophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Heb. 1:1, 2. Adisregard for his revealed will would be lawlessness - sin. But to claim that God gave thepatriarchs his law in the exact form and words of the ten commandments is a prooflessassumption, contrary to reason and all the facts in the case.
PROPOSITION 12. THIS ORIGINAL LAW IS SUPERIOR TO THE LAW OF SINAI.When asked "Which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said: "Thoushalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thymind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shaltlove thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and theprophets." Matt. 22:37-40. Neither of these is in the decalogue; but that law hangson this higher law, and so is inferior to it. These principles, clad in the panoply ofeternal immutability, lay back of the Mosaic law and existed with it throughout thatdispensation as they had existed before and exist now.
In its very nature this great law of supreme love to God, and equal love to fellowcreatures, must be as eternal and everlasting as God himself. This law governs angels,governed Adam, the patriarchs, the pious Jews, while under "the law," andGentile Christians now. It is applicable to all God's creatures, in all ages and allworlds. Idolatry, murder, theft, selfishness and "all unrighteousness," 1 John5:17, are and always were violations of this supreme law of God. This great law might beworded in different ways at different times and yet the same essential idea be preserved.Thus Jesus stated the second great commandment in another form. "Therefore all thingswhatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the lawand the prophets." Matt. 7:12. The idea is the same as "Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself." The exact words or form in which this law is stated is notmaterial so long as the idea is made plain. Evidently this supreme law must have been madeknown to Adam and to the patriarchs but in just what form we are not told. To say that itwas in the exact words of the decalogue is to affirm what can in no wise be proved.
PROPOSITION 13. THE MOSAIC LAW WAS FOUNDED UPON THE HIGHER AND ORIGINALLAW. Jesus directly affirms this, Matt. 22:40. "On these two commandmentshangs all the law." The principles of this great law were interwoven all through thelaw of Sinai, being the life, "the spirit," or "the righteousness" of"the law." Rom. 2:26-29; 8:4. As an example, examine Lev. 19. Here you have thesecond great commandment, verse 18, and the principles of every one of the tencommandments. Thus: 1st commandment, verse 32; 2nd, verse 4; 3d, verse 12; 4th, verse 30;5th, verse 3; 6th, verse 17; 7th, verse 29; 8th, verse 13; 9th, verse 11; 10th verse 35.Mingled among these are commandments about sacrifices, verse 5; harvest, verse 9;clothing, verse 19; priests, verse 22; first fruits, verse 23; wizards, verse 31.Gentiles, verse 34, etc. All these are founded upon this higher law and can be changed tofit circumstances without affecting the supreme law, which is ever the same.
The particular wording of the law as adapted to the Jewish age was "theletter" or "form" of the law for the time being. While the spirit of thelaw can never change, the letter of it must change to fit the changing circumstances ofGod's people. If a Jew loved God with all his heart, he would have circumcised his sons,offered burnt sacrifices, paid tithes, kept the passover, the new moons, the Sabbath, andattended the temple worship, for this was "the law of the Lord." 2 Chron. 31:3;Luke 2:22-27. But if a Christian loves God he will be baptized, Acts 2:38, take the Lord'ssupper, 1 Cor. 11:24, attend church, Heb. 10:25, keep "the Lord's day," Rev.1:10, and do many things very different from a Jew. Hence "there is made of necessitya change also of the law." Heb. 7:12. This is both Bible and common sense. Those whomake the mere letter of the Jewish law an iron rule, and contend for the exact wordingunder all circumstances, and in all ages, miss the spirit of the gospel, and are inbondage to a system out of date. Gal. 3:19-25; 4:21-25; 5:1-3, 13, 14; 2 Cor. 3:3-15.
PROPOSITION 14. "THE LAW" OF SINAI WAS GIVEN TO RESTRAINCRIMINALS WHO WOULD ONLY OBEY GOD THROUGH FEAR. Consider this proposition well. Afailure to understand this simple fact is the cause of all the blunders of Sabbatariansand legalists in their extravagant and unscriptural praises of "the ministration ofdeath written and engraven in stones." 2 Cor. 3:7. On this point hear Paul state whythat law was made and notice that it is of the moral precepts of the law that he speaks."Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless anddisobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers offathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defilethemselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there beany other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 1 Tim. 1:9, 10. There can be nodoubt that he refers to the code of Sinai, that which prohibited murder, thefts, etc. Thislaw he says was not made for a righteous man but for the lawless. Of this law in anotherplace Paul says: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because oftransgressions." Gal. 3:19. Again, "The law entered that the offense mightabound." Rom. 5:20, and, "until the law sin was in the world," verse 13.Hence it is manifest that sin, offense and transgression existed before "thelaw" was given, and that it was given to prohibit already existing crimes. EvidentlyGod put the race on trial from Adam to Moses under the same eternal law of right and lovewhich governed the angels and holy men. But mankind failed shamefully. They did not liveby that rule. They became lawless. Disregard of God and open violence towards men wereincreasing, till life and property were insecure. Then God selected one nation, theHebrews, and gave up the rest to their own ways. Rom. 1:20-28.
Up to this time God's people had not been a nation by themselves but had dwelt amongother nations and had been subject to their civil laws which prohibited open violence andprotected life and property. But as soon as they became a nation by themselves, it becameabsolutely necessary to have a national law of their own which would prohibit and punishopen crime, such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. Life and property would not have beensecure without this, because many among them were wicked, lawless men, "stiff-neckedand rebellious." If all had been righteous, if all had loved God and their neighbors,there would have been no need of a prohibitory law with a death penalty. We can readilysee the reason why Paul says "the law was not made for a righteous man, but for thelawless," These lawless ones would have robbed and murdered the righteous ones hadthere been no national, temporal law to protect them, for these, wicked men would havecared little about God's higher law, which pertains to the future judgment. But as theJewish government was a theocracy, one in which God himself was ruler, the law requiredand regulated service to him as well as duties among themselves.
Hence to this nation God gave the law of Sinai. Ex. 20:2. Would it have been given ifmen had obeyed God without? Paul has settled that point. "The law is not made for arighteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient." l Tim. 1:9. Then the law was notmade till man had sinned, Rom. 5:13, offended, verse 20, transgressed, Gal. 3:19, andbecame lawless. This then is not God's original law by which he prefers to govern men. Itwas a law largely of prohibitions, threats, pains and penalties. Its object was torestrain open crime, protect men in their natural rights and preserve the knowledge of Godin the earth till Christ should come. Gal. 3:19-25. In order to keep that nation separatefrom all others, many burdensome rites were incorporated into the law which made it a yokeof bondage. Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1, 3.
When Christ came, and the Jewish nation was rejected and dispersed, and their nationallaw overthrown, and the gospel went to all nations, that law had served its purpose, andso passed away as a system. Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:24; Heb. 7:12-19. NowChristians are not under the Aaronic priesthood, nor the Jewish law. Heb. 7:11, 12; butare under the priesthood of Melchisedec, verses 14-19, as was Abraham our father, Gen.14:18-20, who never had "the law" of Sinai, Gal. 3:17, but walked by the higherlaw which governs angels and holy men, Gen. 26:5. The Jewish law being removed, we nowcome under the same law by which Enoch and Abraham "walked with God." The sermonon the mount is a beautiful elucidation of that law, the rule by which all Christiansshould live, and by which all sinners will be judged at the judgment.
Now, as in the days before Moses, God's people are not a nation by themselves, but arescattered among all nations where they are governed and protected by the civil law ofthose nations. Hence the New Testament provides no civil law for the government ofChristians, no temporal penalties for criminals. It would be directly contrary to thenature of the gospel to do either. All this is left to the rulers of nations whereverChristians happen to be. Open criminals, who will not obey from principle, the higher law,are now turned over to the civil magistrate. Paul makes this matter very plain and putsthe question beyond dispute. Thus: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoevertherefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shallreceive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to theevil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalthave praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou dothat which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is theminister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye mustneeds be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this causepay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this verything." Rom. 13:1-6.
There is where you find prohibitory law for "the lawless;" that is, in thecivil law of the land where they live. This punishes their crime against society. Theiroffenses against God's great law will be recompensed at the judgment, but the saints ofGod must be governed by the higher law, the law of supreme love to God and equal love tofellows. Such obedience can come only from a heart renewed by the Spirit of God, 2 Cor.3:3, and "if ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the law." Gal. 5:18.
Is any man a Christian who refrains from murder, theft, and adultery, simply becausethe law says, "Thou shalt not"? No, indeed, he must refrain from these from ahigher motive than that. Then surely he must be governed by a higher law than thedecalogue. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. 13:10. The dispute betweenPaul and the Judaizers then was over the nature and obligation of the Jewish law. Thedispute now concerning the Jewish Sabbath involves the same point, the obligation of theletter of the Jewish law.
PROPOSITION 15. THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS NOT BINDING UPON CHRISTIANS ASA COERCIVE CODE. Little argument ought to be needed to prove this; for if theletter of the law is binding, then we must be circumcised; offer sacrifices, keep theseventh day and all the Jewish ritual, for "the law" included the whole law,Gal. 3:10; 5:3.
Notice in the following text that "the righteousness of the law" and thespirit of the law is one thing, while "the letter" and outward service is quiteanother. Notice further that a man may "fulfill the law" without keeping theletter of it, and thus condemn the formalist who keeps the letter of the law but not thespirit of it. Paul says: "If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcisionwhich is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcisiondost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is thatcircumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; andcircumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise isnot of men, but of God." Rom. 2:26-29.
Paul argues that Christians must be circumcised, but not "outwardly in theflesh," as formerly, but "inwardly in the spirit, not in the letter." Bythis he illustrates the difference between keeping the law now and formerly. So, furtheron: "Ye are not under the law but under grace." Rom. 6:14. So in the nextchapter he says: "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein wewere held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of theletter." Rom. 7:6.
How can one misunderstand language so plain? Now, under Christ, we are delivered fromthe law; that law is dead, and we serve Christ in the spirit, "not in the oldletter." So again he says, urging this point: "That the righteousness of the lawmight be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Chap.8:4. Paul uses the word "flesh" for the outward "works of the law."See Gal. 3:2, 3. We do not walk according to the outward form of the law, but we do obeythe intent and spirit of it or its "righteousness," as he here calls it.
The higher law of God, supreme love to God and equal love to our neighbors, upon whichthe Jewish law hung, was the "spirit," "righteousness," or real intentof "the law." This "first and great" law Christians do keep, whilefree from the mere letter of the law, which was bondage. Hence to the Galatians who werebeing troubled with Judaizing legalists, Paul wrote: "For, brethren, ye have beencalled unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serveone another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Gal.5:13, 14, 18.
How he reiterates the truth in all his letters, that Christians are not under the law;that they are called to a liberty which Jews never enjoyed. Notice how he states it overand over that all the law is fulfilled in this, Love your neighbor as yourself. "Loveis the fulfilling of the law." "He that loveth another hath fulfilled thelaw." Rom. 13:8, 10. This is not a liberty to licentiousness and self-indulgence; butit is a liberty from the forms and ceremonies of the law which bound the Jews.
In Jer. 31:3l-34, it was foretold that the Lord would make a "new covenant"with Israel, "not according" to the one he made at Sinai; for he would put hislaws in their hearts and minds. This clearly indicated a change from the previous formalway of governing God's people. Paul thus refers to that prophecy: "not in tables ofstone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." "Who also hath made us ableministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letterkilleth, but the spirit giveth life." 2 Cor. 3:3, 6.
Now the law for the Christian is not that written in the book or on the tables ofstone. It was not the letter but the spirit of that law which the apostles taught. So Paulsays. Then he says that "the ministration of death written and engraven in stones,was" "done way." Verses 7, 11. Surely, then, Christians are free from theletter of that law; but it is still to be studied with reverence and its spirit carriedout in Christian duties though in form these must differ from Jewish duties. Theobservance of the Lord's day meets the spirit of the fourth commandment. We arecircumcised in heart, not in the flesh. Rom. 2:26-29.
Rev. W.P. Harrison, D.D., book editor of the M.E. Church, South, truly says: "Thecoming of Christ did not repeal any moral law, and the ceremonial law was not repealed,but fulfilled. All that was permanent, useful, or spiritual in the Mosaic economy remains,NOT IN THE LETTER OF STATUTES, but in the fulfilled and completed dispensation ofgrace." The Christian Sabbath, page 30. So Rev. J.H. Potts, D.D. Methodist, says: Lawunder the Mosaic dispensation was formulated into nine moral precepts, with a Sabbathcommandment added, making ten in all. This same law under the Christian dispensation issummarized under two grand heads - love to God and love to man. Yet not one jot or onetittle of the essence of the moral law is abated. When Paul, referring to the abolishmentof the law dispensation, said: 'For if that which was done away was glorious, much morethat which remaineth is glorious,' he indicated the correct status of the law. The ESSENCEof the moral law 'remaineth.'" This is exactly what I believe.
The following, from Peter, is a fair illustration of the spiritual application of theold law which the apostles make all through the gospel: "Ye also, as lively stones,are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5. The old temple, priesthood, andsacrifices of the law, now have a spiritual meaning as found in the church and itsservice.
PROPOSITION 16. THE LAW WAS CHANGED. Jeremiah predicted thatunder the new covenant, God's law would be written in the heart and not as it was before."I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts." Jer.31:33. Paul refers to this when he says, Ye are our epistle "written not with ink,but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables ofthe heart." 2 Cor. 3:3. So then God's law is not now written on tables of stone as atSinai. This is a square contradiction to what Adventists teach. They claim that God's lawis still on stones in heaven the same as of old. Paul says no, it is written by the spiritupon the heart.
This implied a radical change in the form of the law and the way it was to be taught.In Heb. 7:12, it is expressly declared that "there is made of necessity a change alsoof the law." The letter of the Jewish law is wholly unfitted to the condition of theChristian church. It can only be a guide to us as modified and interpreted by the gospel.But in the gospel there is no injunction to keep the seventh day. Hence the letter of thatcommand does not concern us.
PROPOSITION 17. THE WHOLE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENDED AT THE CROSS.Surelythis is so plainly taught all through the New Testament that no one should deny it. But wehave clearly proved that "the law" included the whole code of laws given toIsrael at Sinai, moral, civil, and ceremonial precepts, decalogue and all.
That entire system of law was framed to fit the Jewish age and could not possibly beapplied to Gentile Christians in all parts of the world. Hence a "new way," Heb.10:20, a "new covenant," Heb. 8:13, a new "ministration," 2 Cor. 3:8,was introduced, so there was "made of necessity a change also of the law," Heb.7:12.
Examine carefully a few texts to which I will refer. "The law was given by Mosesbut grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1:17. This implies a change. "Yeare not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6:14. "Under the mercifuldispensation of the gospel." John Wesley. "The law was our schoolmaster to bringus unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we areno longer under a schoolmaster," Gal. 3:24, 25. "Ye also are become dead to thelaw by the body of Christ," Rom. 7:4. "Now we are delivered from the law,"verse 6. "Christ is the end of the law," Rom. 10:4. "The ministration ofdeath written and engraven in stones was glorious." "That which is done away wasglorious," 2 Cor. 3:7, 10. That ends the decalogue.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments containedin ordinances," Eph. 2:15. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that wasagainst us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to thecross." "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of aholy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days," Col. 2:14, 16, "For thepriesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.""For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weaknessand unprofitableness thereof." "For the law made nothing perfect but thebringing in of a better hope." Heb. 7:12, 18, 19.
Read Acts 15:1-29 and see this whole matter of "the law" discussed by theapostles and settled in these words: "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain whichwent out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, YE MUST becircumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment." Verse 24. The,decision is positive and clear: the apostles gave no commandment to "keep thelaw." It does not say "ceremonial law," or a part of the law, but simply"the law." Adventists say we must keep the law or "ye can not besaved," exactly what those Judaizers said, verse 1, and just what the councilcondemned. Circumcision was specially mentioned because it was the initiatory rite, thesign which represented the whole law. Thus when a Gentile would partake of the privilegesof the nation, he had first to be circumcised. Ex. 12:48. To be uncircumcised was to be aheathen, unclean, and lost; to be circumcised was to be an Israelite, a member of the holynation. Hence circumcision represented the whole law of Moses in all its parts. ElderButler, Adventist leader, has to confess this. He says: "The term 'the law,' amongthe Jews generally included the five books of Moses, thus including the whole system,moral, ritual, typical, and civil. This as a system these Judaizing teachers desired tomaintain. Circumcision was a sign of the whole." Law in Galatians, page 70. Never wasa truer statement. Circumcision was the sign of the whole Mosaic system, moral, typical,civil, all that was written in the five books of Moses, of which the decalogue was a chiefpart. The apostles decided that Gentile believers were free from this whole system of law.Put with Butler's statement this from Elder Smith, another leading Adventist, and you havethe whole truth: "That which was abolished at the cross was an entire system. God didnot single out and abolish portions and pieces of some arrangement or system, and leaveother parts remaining." Synopsis of Present Truth, page 259. Correct; the wholesystem ended at the cross.
PROPOSITION 18. NO PART OF GOD'S GREAT SPIRITUAL LAW WAS ABOLISHED,RE-ENACTED, OR CHANGED AT THE CROSS. Adventists make a great ado over theabsurdity of the idea that God should abolish his law at the cross and then immediatelyre-enact nine-tenths of it. They say, as well cut off your ten fingers to get rid of onebad one and then stick nine on again. So they go on with a whole jumble of absurditiesinvolved in the position that God's moral law was abolished at the cross and a new onegiven. But this is only a man of straw of their own making and hence easily demolished. Wehold no such absurd position. God's great moral law is unchangeable. But the Mosaic lawwas only a national one founded upon the principles of God's moral law. Even while itexisted it did not supersede God's higher law, and when it ended it in no way affectedGod's law, which continued right on unchanged and unchangeable.
To illustrate: The state law of Michigan forbids murder, theft and adultery. In theseitems it is founded upon God's moral law. Now abolish the law of Michigan. Does thatabolish God's law? No. So with the state law of Israel. Neither its enactment on Sinai norits abolition at the cross in any way changed God's great moral law by which he will judgethe world. The Advent absurdities grew out of their own false theory, that is all.Adventists agree with us that the law of Moses, Acts 15:5, was abolished. Well, that lawcontained many precepts as purely moral as anything in the decalogue. Here are some:"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." Deut. 6:5. "Love thyneighbor as thyself." "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie oneto another." Lev. 19:11, 18. Scores of such precepts are all through this law whichthey admit was abolished. They are just as moral, spiritual, and necessary as anything inthe ten commandments, and yet all this law was abolished as they admit. But did thatabolish the duty enjoined in these precepts? No, because they were inherent in a higherlaw. Just so every moral principle involved in the decalogue existed in a higher lawbefore that document was given, and so did not cease when that law expired. Elder Whitehimself makes this admission: "The ten commandments are adapted to fallen beings. Asworded in the sacred Scripture, they are not adapted to the condition of holy angels, norto man in his holy estate in Eden. * * * But the two grand principles of God's moralgovernment did exist before the fall, in the form of law. * * * These two greatcommandments embrace all that is required by the ten precepts of the decalogue." Lawand Gospel, pages 4, 5. Good and true. Then the ten commandments are not God's primarylaw. They are only temporary, while that containing all that is moral in them, and muchmore, continues always.
"The teachings of Christianity are facts and principles, not propositions andrestrictions; its institutions are simple outlines, not precise ceremonies; and its lawsare moral sentiments, not minute mechanical directions." Pulpit Commentary on 2 Cor.3:6. This is the truth well put.
So the wicked who do not live by these principles, who do not love God nor theirfellows, but who live selfish, corrupt lives, will be judged and condemned by theseprinciples of God's eternal law, as taught in the New Testament.
With Seventh-Day Adventists the decalogue is the one supreme moral and spiritual law ofGod, than which there is none higher. It is the law which governs the angels in heaven.Thus Mrs. White says: "The law of God existed before man was created. The angels weregoverned by it. After Adam and Eve were created, God made known to them his law.""Spirit of Prophecy," Vol. I, page 261. It governs all men in all ages, and inthe world to come. These ten commandments cover the whole duty of man, so that there is nosin which can be committed that is not a violation of this law, while at the same time itenjoins every virtue. "No virtue known to the moral world herein fails of approvaland commendation; and no vice or crime of which man was ever guilty, escapescondemnation." Perfection of the Ten Commandments, page 4. But these claims areextravagant and unfounded. A desire to sustain the seventh-day Sabbath has led to thisfalse position on the decalogue. Twenty-five hundred years, nearly half the entire historyof the world, passed away before the decalogue was given at all, as we have proved. Thisis strange if the decalogue is so all important.
Let us examine it. Moses says distinctly that all the words which the Lord spoke werewritten on the tables of stone: "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone,written with the finger of God: and on them was written according to all the words whichthe Lord spake with you in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire." Deut. 9:10. Thistext is too decisive to be evaded. All that God spoke was written on the tables and was apart of the decalogue. Here are the first of those words: "And God spake all thesewords, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me," etc. Ex.20:1-3. These words are as much a part of the decalogue as any of the rest of it. Theywere spoken by God from heaven, written by his finger, were engraven on the stone, and putin the ark. Now look at the law chart which Seventh-Day Adventists hang up as the"law of God." Are these words on there? No, indeed. Why are they left off ?Because, if put on, they would spoil their whole theory of that law. They claim that thislaw is binding upon the angels. But how would this sound to the angels: "I am theLord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house ofbondage"? Were the angels in bondage in Egypt? Would not that sound a little queer toGabriel and the seraphs, to be told that they had been in bondage in Egypt? Read it toAdam. That would have been news to him to learn that he had been in bondage in Egypt! Readit to a free-born American; read it to all the redeemed hosts in heaven. To whom are thewords applicable? Just to the Jewish nation and to no others. For them the decalogue wasframed and to them it was given. For years I searched to find one text stating that thislaw was ever given to any people but the Jews. I never found it. These first words showplainly that it was addressed only to them.
Seventh-Day Adventists assert that the Sabbath precept is the only thing in thedecalogue that tells who gave it. Thus: "Aside from this precept [the Sabbath] thereis nothing in the decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given." Mrs. White,in Great Controversy, page 284. This is not true. The introductory words tell plainly whogave it. It was the God who brought them out of Egypt. Here are the name, signature andseal of that law in the first words of it. Here God stands before them as their*Deliverer*, rather than as their *Creator*. Their obedience to these commands is basedupon this fact. See how plain it is. I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt,therefore thou shalt do thus and so. Egypt, not Eden, is pointed to. In the copy of thedecalogue as given in Deut. 5:6-21, there is no reference whatever to creation, whiledeliverance from Egypt is made prominent. "To extend it further than its own prefaceis to violate the rules of criticism."
What an unnatural and unheard of thing it would be, in giving an important document, tosign the, name of the author in the middle of it, as Sabbatarians say the Lord did ingiving the decalogue! In our time the name is signed at the close of a document; butanciently, specially among the Jews, the name of the author was, always given first, inthe first sentence of the document. Thus: "Artaxerxes, king of kings, untoEzra," etc. Ezra 7:12. The vision of Isaiah," etc. Isa. 1:1. "The words ofJeremiah," etc. Jer. 1:1. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ," etc. Rom. 1:1."James, a servant of God," etc. Jas. 1:1. "Peter, an apostle," etc. 1Pet. 1:1. So it is all through the Bible, the name and authority are given first, thenfollows the body of the document. Just so the Lord, according to this ancient custom thenin use and familiar to all, in giving the decalogue first announces his name, "theLord thy God," and his power, "that brought thee out of Egypt."
This he does in the opening words of that law. Here, then, in the very first words ofthe decalogue, and not in the Sabbath precept in the middle of the law, is the name, signand seal of the law-giver. Jehovah, who brought them out of Egypt. This settles it thatthis law was not given till then, was given only to the Jews and was designed for noothers. To illustrate: Opening to a law passed by the legislature of Michigan, February16, 1882, I read: "Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of thestate of Michigan," etc. Now suppose that some one should claim that this law waspassed one thousand years ago and was designed for the whole world. Would not theseopening words show that this law was not enacted till Michigan became a state and that itwas designed only for the people of Michigan? Assuredly. Just so the opening words of thedecalogue show that this law was not given till God brought Israel out of Egypt, that itwas given to them and to no others. If any one will find a copy of the decalogue beforethis time, we will give up the case. All the way through it there are evidences that itwas worded to fit only the Jewish nation in their peculiar circumstances.
Take the Sabbath commandment: "Thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thymaid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." Ex. 20:10.Think of that commandment being given to angels in Heaven! "Sons,""daughters," and "thy neighbor's wife," verse 17, when they neithermarry nor are given in marriage! Again: "Cattle," "ox,""ass," etc. Do the angels own cattle and work oxen and asses in heaven? So"man servants and maid servants." This means bond servants or slaves, such asthe Hebrews owned in those days. This is shown by the tenth commandment, verse 17."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox,nor his ass." These were his property, servants or slaves, oxen, asses, etc. But dothe angels own slaves? Did Adam have servants in Eden? Will the redeemed own themhereafter? What nonsense to apply this law to the angels and to Eden and to heaven! Thiswording was specially adapted to the social condition of the Jews as a nation in the landof Canaan, and to no others.
Once more: "Thy stranger that is within thy gates." Verse 10. As everybodyknows, "the stranger" was the Gentile. "Within thy gates" was a commonexpression meaning within your cities or dwelling in your land. It has no reference toliving on your farm or inside the gates that enclose your farm, as Adventists alwaysexplain it. The towns were walled in and entered by gates. Here is where the judges satand all business was done. Thus: "All that went in at the gate of his city."Gen. 23:10. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates." Deut.16:18. To this custom of the Jews the Sabbath commandment refers. All the Gentilesdwelling in their cities among them must be made to keep the Sabbath. This shows it to bea national law, worded in all its parts to fit the circumstances of the Jews at the time.
This command, then, could not apply to any but the Jews there. Again, the fifthcommandment: "The land which the Lord giveth them," verse 12, plainly refers toCanaan, which God gave them. The ninth precept: "Thou shalt not bear false witnessagainst thy neighbors" This does not relate to lying in general, but only to a falseoath against a neighbor in court. See Deut. 19:15-19. A man could tell a hundred lieswhich would not be false witness against a neighbor. The command against lying is found inLev. 19:11: "Neither lie one to another." This is a moral precept much broaderthan the ninth commandment.
Every principle contained in the decalogue is also found time and again laid down inthe law of Moses, either in the same or similar words. Thus, for example: Lev. 19reiterates every principle found in the ten commandments, with many more besides. Howerroneous, then, to call one the moral law and the other the ceremonial law, when both areof the same nature, the decalogue simply being representative precepts from the law ofMoses.
But the chief argument used to prove the superior nature of the ten commandments isthat they were spoken by God's voice, written by His finger on stone, and placed in theark, while all the rest of the law was written by the hand of Moses in a book. Why werethese commandments thus selected out and given in such a manner if not to exalt them aboveall others? The answer is easy: According to the custom of those times, any solemncontract or covenant was commemorated by selecting some object as witness or testimony ofit. Thus: Jacob erected a pillar as a witness of his vow to God. Gen. 28:18. Jacob andLaban made a heap of stones as witness of their covenant. Gen. 31:48. Abraham set apartseven lambs as "a witness" of his covenant with Abimelech. Gen. 21:27-30.
Just so when the solemn covenant was made between God and Israel at Sinai, the Lordgave them the tables of stone to be always kept as a witness or "testimony" ofthat agreement. Hence they are called "the tables of testimony," that is,witness. Ex. 31:18. So the tabernacle was "the tabernacle of testimony," Num.1:53; or, "the tabernacle of witness," Num. 17:7. These tables of stone, then,containing some of the chief items of the law, were always to be kept as"witness" of the covenant which Israel had made to keep that law. Evidently thisis the reason why the decalogue was given as it was, and not because it was a perfect andeternal law in and of itself.
Manifestly it would have been impossible to carry around the whole law if written onstones; hence only a few samples out of that law could have been selected and put onstones to be kept as a witness of that covenant. So the reason why God spoke these wordswas not because it was a perfect law, but to impress their minds so that they never wouldforget it. This is just what God says himself: "I will make them hear my words, thatthey may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live." Deut. 4:10. How muchmore simple and manifest these reasons are than the imaginary ones invented bySabbatarians.
That the decalogue was merely the national law for the Jews and temporal in itsobligation, is proved by the fact that stoning to death was the penalty for its violation.When death was thus inflicted upon a man, he had paid the penalty of that law, and all thepenalty there was. But is stoning to death the penalty for God's moral law? No, that iseternal death at the judgment. A man who is hung for murder has paid the penalty of thelaw of our land, the same as the Jew who was stoned paid the penalty of the law of hisland. Will God judge a man the second time at the judgment by the law of our land after hehas once paid its penalty by hanging? No, but he will be judged by another and a higherlaw, the great spiritual law of God. And so it will be with the Jews. They will never bejudged the second time by the decalogue, for that was only national, but by the higherlaw, the one that requires supreme love to God, and love to man as to himself. A lawwithout a penalty is a nullity; but stoning, the penalty attached to the decalogue, wasabolished at the cross; hence the law must have ceased there too.
Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the ten commandments are a perfect law, condemningevery possible sin and requiring every possible virtue. But this is all assumption andcontrary to the manifest truth. Which one of the ten commandments condemns pride,boasting, drunkenness, unthankfulness, love of pleasure, anger, filthy talk, impatience,variance, selfishness, and the like? Which one of the ten commandments requires us to feedthe poor, to visit the fatherless and the widow, to suffer long and be kind, to be gentle,meek, temperate, to pray, to repent, to go to meeting, to forgive, and the like? No, the,decalogue does no such thing, because it was made for no such purpose. It was merelyprohibitory in its nature. The man who merely did nothing, who simply avoided crime, keptthat law. But the law of God, by which a Christian must live, requires him to do, and todo much. He must love God, love his neighbor, love his enemies, visit the widow and theneedy, suffer wrong, be patient, entertain strangers, and be active in every good work.
It requires unceasing activity and the consecration of all our energies to good works;but the decalogue requires nothing but to avoid open crime. The decalogue alone is nevercalled the law of God, nor the law of the Lord, nor a perfect law, nor is it said that anyone will be judged by it, or that it is binding on Christians.
The Catholic Division Of The Decalogue
Seventh-Day Adventists have made a great ado over the way Catholics divide and numberthe ten commandments. They have gotten up a chart showing in one column the decalogue"as changed by the pope" and in another as "given by God." Here theyshow how "the pope has changed God's law in fulfillment of Dan. 7:25." Accordingto this, the Catholics included in the first commandment what we have in the first two.Then our third is their second, our fourth their third, and so on till our tenth of whichthey make two. Adventists claim that the pope did this to get rid of the secondcommandment and to change the Sabbath. But the whole thing is utterly false, as may beseen under the word decalogue in any religious encyclopedia. The Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia says: "There have been three arrangements of the decalogue--the Talmudic(Jewish), the Augustinian (adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches), and theHellenistic (Greek), the view of Philo, Josephus, Origen, the Greek and Reformed churches,etc. The following table exhibits the differences, the record in Ex. 20 being used.
It will be seen here that the Catholics have simply followed the early fathers in this,while we have followed the Greeks. The pope had nothing to do with making this division ofthe commandments. It will be seen that according to the Talmudic (Jewish) division, whichis the oldest of all, the first commandment is the words, "I am the Lord thy Godwhich brought thee out of the land of Egypt," etc. The Jews, the Catholics, and theLutherans include in their first commandment the introductory words, "I am the Lordthy God," &c., just as all should do, for these are the most important words ofall, for they tell who gave that law. Adventists expunge these to save their theory. Thus,as I learned more, I began to see on every hand how the arguments of the Adventists werefallacious and contrary to history and to facts.
Eminent Authors On The Decalogue
Many of the most eminent, devout and learned men of the church have held that thedecalogue was abolished, though they were far from being Antinomians.
Among these were the apostolical fathers, Luther, Calvin, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan,Doddridge, Whately, Grotius, Locke, Sherlock, Watts, Hessey, Judson, George Dana Boardman,and a host of such men. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, says: "The law promulgated on Horebis now old and belongs to yourselves (Jews) alone: but this is for all universally. Nowlaw placed against law has abrogated that which is before it." Dialogue with Trypho,Chap. 11. On this Elder Andrew says: "That Justin held to the abrogation of the tencommandments is also manifested." Testimony of the Fathers, page 43.
Tertullian, A. D. 200, says: "The abolition of the ancient law we fullyadmit." Against Marcian, Book 5. Chap. 2. On the law he quotes Col. 2:16, and says:"The apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished." Ibid. Chap. 19.
Luther says: "The ten commandments do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, butonly to the Jews. If a preacher wishes to force you back to Moses, ask him whether youwere brought by Moses out of Egypt. If he says no, then say: 'How, then, does Mosesconcern me, since he speaks (in the ten words) to the people that have been brought out ofEgypt.' In the New Testament Moses comes to an end and his laws lose their force."See Kitto's Cyclopedia, Article Law. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says: "In itsindividual, or what is usually called its 'moral' aspect, the Law bore equally the stampof transitoriness. It seems clear enough that its formal, coercive authority as a whole,ended with the close of the Jewish dispensation." Art. Law.
Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, says: "They [Christ and the apostles]even clearly indicate that the moral law is by no means excepted when they speak of theabolition of the law in general." Art. Law.
The recent popular commentary of Jamison, Faussett and Brown, says: "The law(including especially the moral law wherein lay the chief difficulty in obeying) isabrogated to the believer as far as it was a compulsory, accusing code." On Col.2:16.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The ten commandments do not apply to usGentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews." On the Ten Commandments.
Says Dr. Dobbs, Baptist: "Nor is this 'new and dangerous teaching.' It was thedoctrine of the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century. Calvin argues in thisstrain in his Institutes. The eminent Baptist scholar and commentator, John Gill, says,writing on Ex. 20:1,2: 'Verse 2 shows that this body of laws was delivered out to thepeople of Israel, and primarily belongs to them; for of no other people can the abovethings be said.' On Matt. 5:17, and 2 Cor. 3:7-11, Gill is emphatic in similar reaching.Read this, on the latter passage: 'The law is that which is done away; not merely theceremonial law, or the judicial law; but the whole ministry of Moses; and particularly thelaw of the decalogue.' I close by citing an incident related by Mrs. Emily C. Judson, inthe Life of Adoniram Judson, by his son, Dr. Edward Judson. Mrs. Judson says that herhusband once reproved her for introducing some lessons from the Old Testament into herBible classes, 'comparing it to groping among shadows when she might just as well have thenoonday sun.' Mrs. Judson in relating this incident, says: 'My impression, drawn from manya long talk, is that he considered the Old Testament as the Scriptures given to the Jewsespecially, and to them only. He did not like the distinction commonly drawn between themoral and the ceremonial law, and sometimes spoke with an earnestness amounting toseverity, of the constant use made of the ten commandments by Christians. He thought theOld Testament very important as explanatory and corroborative of the New -- as a portionof the inspiration which came from God, etc., but binding on Christians only so far asrepeated in the New Testament. He used to speak of the Mosaic law as fulfilled in Christ,and so having no further power whatever; and to say that we have no right to pick out thisas moral, and therefore obligatory, and the other as ceremonial and no longer demandingobedience. Practically, we had nothing to do with the Old Testament law."' Life ofJudson, pages 411,412.
Rev. George Dana Boardman, D. D., the eminent Baptist divine, in his recent book on"The Ten Commandments," says: "Although the decalogue, in its spirit, isfor all lands and ages, yet, in its letter, it was evidently for the Jews. The verypreamble proves the assertion: 'God spake all these words, saying: I am Jehovah, thy God,who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' Then follow theten commandments, based on the unique fact that Jehovah was the covenant God ofIsrael." Pages 127-130.
John Milton says: "With regard to the doctrine of those who consider the decalogueas a code of universal morality, I am at a loss to understand how such an opinion shouldever have prevailed; these commandments being evidently nothing more than a summary of thewhole Mosaic law as the fourth is of the whole ceremonial law; which therefore can containnothing applicable to the gospel worship." Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. 1,Book 2, Chap. 7.
No other subject perplexes Adventists so much as the covenants. They dread to meet it.They have tried various ways to explain it away, but they are not satisfactory even tothemselves. I have been there and know. "The abolition of the Sinatic covenantcarries with it the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath so completely that no authoritativetrace of it can be found this side of the grave of our risen Lord."
Elder Smith says: "If the ten commandments constituted the old covenant, then theyare forever gone." "This, therefore, becomes a test question." TwoCovenants, page 5. We will soon see the force of this. Jer. 31:31, 32, says: "Beholdthe days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." Herewe learn these facts about the first, or old covenant: 1. It was made between God andIsrael. 2. It was made when he brought them out of Egypt. 3. A new covenant is to be made.4. It will not be according to the old one. Adventists and all agree that this oldcovenant is found in Ex. 19 to 24. We all know that the ten commandments, how and why theywere given, are the prominent things in those five chapters. We also know that they arecalled "the covenant," that was given on Sinai or Horeb. Thus: "And theLord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but sawno similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which hecommanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables ofstone." "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made notthis covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive thisday." Deut. 4:12,13; 5:2,3. Then follows the ten commandments as the covenant named.Again: "The tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made withyou." Deut. 9:9. So also, "and he wrote upon the tables the words of thecovenant, the ten commandments." Ex. 34:28. Surely this is plain enough for a commonman. What is a covenant? Webster says: "A mutual consent or agreement of two or morepersons to do or forbear some act or thing; a contract." As the decalogue alone isnot a mutual agreement, it must enter into, and so become a part of, some agreement, to becalled the covenant as it is so frequently. Examining, we find that the decalogue was thevery basis of the covenant at Sinai; the chief thing in the covenant between God andIsrael. This even Elder Smith owns: "It was the basis of the whole arrangement."The Two Covenants, page 10. Being the chief thing in the covenant, it is by way ofeminence put for the whole and so called "the covenant."
Opening to Ex. 19, we read: "In the third month, when the children of Israel weregone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness ofSinai." Verse 1. It was at Sinai as they came out of Egypt. Moses was mediator. Verse3. The Lord sends him to say to Israel "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep mycovenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earthis mine." Verse. 5. Moses goes and repeats this offer to the Jews: they say:"All that the Lord hath said we will do." Verse 8. Here was an agreement, acovenant, between God and Israel. They agree to obey his voice. He agrees to bless them.Next they prepare to hear his voice. Verses 9-25. In Chap. 20 God speaks the tencommandments and follows them with various precepts through Moses to the end of chapter23, closing with a promise to bless their bread and water, to take away sickness fromthem, to drive out the Canaanites and give them the land. Chapter 24:1-8, relates howMoses then rehearsed to the people "all the words of the Lord and all thejudgments." Again they agree to obey. Verse 3. Then "Moses wrote all the wordsof the Lord" in a book. Verse 4. Assembling the people again, he read "the bookof the covenant" to them, and the third time they say, "All that the Lord hathsaid we will do." Verse 7. "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on thepeople, and said, 'behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with youconcerning all these words.' Verse 8. That closed the covenant. We know that this was thefirst, or old, covenant, for Paul, quoting this very verse, says it was. Heb. 9:18-20.That settles it.
How much did the covenant embrace? Only one truthful answer can be given, viz. Allincluded in the record from Ex. 19:1 to Ex. 24:8, for this is the covenant in detailwritten out. Is the decalogue included in it? As well deny that the sun shines, for thereit is written out in full in the very heart of the covenant. Ex. 20:1-17. As Smith saidabove, "It was the basis of the whole arrangement." It was so prominent a partof the covenant that it alone is put for the whole covenant, as we often speak of seeing avessel, a house, or a river, when we saw only a part of it. Hence the stones on which thedecalogue was written are called "the tables of the covenant," Deut. 9:9; the,book in which it was written was called "the book of the covenant," Ex. 24:7;the ark in which it was deposited was called "the ark of the covenant," Deut.31:26.
But Ex. 19-24, is only an epitome of the covenant; for all the subsequent teachings ofMoses are only a further explanation of it and belonged to it. Indeed, it gave its name tothe whole Old Testament, that is, Old Covenant.
This covenant was only national and temporal, given only to the Jews and referred onlyto earthly blessings. It made no reference to the future life. Dr. Scott says: "Thenational covenant with Israel was here meant. It was an engagement of God, to give Israelpossession of Canaan," etc. "It did not refer to the final salvation ofindividuals." On Ex. 19:5.
Now notice how plainly and how repeatedly the ten commandments are called "thecovenant," which God gave at Sinai to Israel when he brought them out of Egypt.
"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, *even*ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. 4:13.
"When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tablesof the covenant which the Lord made with you." Deut. 9:9. What covenant was on thetables of stone? The one the Lord made with them. Again he tells when it was made and whatit was: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not thiscovenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire (I stoodbetween the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye wereafraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount), saying, I am the Lord thyGod, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalthave none other gods before me." Deut. 5:2-7. So he goes on giving the tencommandments. That ought to settle it. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thouthese words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and withIsrael. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eatbread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the tencommandments." Ex. 34:27, 28. If that is not plain enough, what would be?
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put thereat Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out ofthe land of Egypt."
"And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord,which he made with our fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt." 1Kings, 8:9-2l.
"And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, that he madewith the children of Israel." 2 Chron. 6:11.
This shuts off all possible doubt as to what the covenant was. 1) There was nothing inthe ark except the tables of stone. 2) Yet in that ark was "the covenant of the Lordwhich he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt." That certainly was theten commandments. Elder Smith says: "If the ten commandments constituted the oldcovenant, then they are forever gone." Two Covenants, page 5. So they are indeed aswe will now see.
That Covenant Is Done Away
As we have seen, Jeremiah, Chap. 31:31-34, foretold that the Lord would make a newcovenant not according to the old one. Paul quotes this in full and says it is fulfilledin the gospel, thus: "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how muchalso he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought forthe second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Notaccording to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them bythe hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant,and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make withthe house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind,and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me apeople. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I willbe merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I rememberno more. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that whichdecayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:6-13.
Notice the points in this. 1. Jesus is mediator of a better covenant than the old.Verse 6. Then we have something better than the decalogue. 2. The new is established onbetter promises than the old, which as we have seen, were all temporal. See Ex. 23:22-33.But the promises of the new covenant are all spiritual. They are (1) God's laws are to bein their hearts. (2) All shall know the Lord, as only converted souls will be admitted;whereas under the old, every member of the nation, good or bad, was a citizen. (3) Godwill forgive and forget all their sins, and so they will all be saints and heirs ofheaven. (4.) Paul says that if the first covenant had been faultless, no place would havebeen sought for a second. This shows that the first covenant was always imperfect. Hencethe Lord says he will make a new one, not according to the old one. Then we cannot havethe old decalogue right over again unchanged. Finally, Paul says the first is made old andis ready to vanish away. That ends the old covenant, the one from Sinai, the tencommandments as we have proved.
In 2 Cor. 3 Paul makes it even plainer still that the decalogue has been removed.
Verse 3. "Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us,written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, butin fleshly tables of the heart. 6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the newtestament [covenant] not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but thespirit giveth life. 7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face ofMoses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; 8. How shall notthe ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9. For if the ministration ofcondemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.11. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth isglorious. 13. And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children ofIsrael could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14. But theirminds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the readingof the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ."
Observe the following points: 1. Verse 3 refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah that a newcovenant would supercede the old one on stones. Now Paul says it is not written with inkas the law of Moses was in a book, nor on stones as the decalogue was, but by the spiritin the heart. The law in the book and on stones have both gone. 2. Verse 6: he says theapostles do not minister the letter but the spirit. "The letter refers exclusively to*the law*." "The context shows that by the letter he meant the old covenant andby the spirit the new." Pulpit Commentary, pages 59-80. 3. To put it beyond alldoubt, as to what he means, Paul, in verse 7, specifies "the ministration of death*written* and *engraven in stones*." Surely we know that this was the decalogue. Thishe calls "the ministration of death." 4. In verses 8 and 9 he calls the gospel"the ministration of the spirit" and "the ministration ofrighteousness" and says that it exceeds in glory the old ministration of death. 5. Toput it beyond doubt that he means the decalogue, he refers to the vail which Moses putover his face when he came down with the tables of stone in his hands. Compare verse 13with Ex. 34:27-35. 6. Twice Paul directly names that which was "written instone," verses 3 and 7; once he says we do not minister the letter, verse 6; he saysthat that which was engraven in stones was the ministration of death, verse 7, and the"ministration of condemnation," verse 9; then he says this was"abolished," verse 13, and three times he says it "was done away,"verses 7, 11, 14. 7. Compare verses 7 and 11. "The ministration of death written andengraven in stones was glorious" and "that which is done away wasglorious;" the very thing which was written in stones in verse 7, is said to "bedone away" in verse 11. 8. In verse 7 the ten commandments are evidently taken torepresent the whole Mosaic dispensation. If these, the foundation of the whole system, areremoved, then of course all the system must go with them. "The ten commandments thuswritten here represent the whole Mosaic economy." Notes of Am. Tract Society on verse7.
Adventists have tried to save their theory here by saying that in verse 7,"ministration" was not what was "engraven" in stones; but that"death" is what was written there. This will not do. In the Greek the word forengraven exactly agrees with *ministration* but does not agree with *death*, hence thedecalogue is what is called "the ministration," and that was done away. Dr.Clarke says on this verse: "Here the apostle evidently intends the law.""This ministration of death, the ten commandments, written on stones, a part of theMosaic institution, being put for the whole, was glorious."
The Pulpit Commentary on this verse says: "Literally, *engraved in* letters onstones (Ex. 31:18). The reference shows that, in speaking of 'the letter,' St. Paul wasonly thinking of the Mosaic Law, and indeed, specifically of the decalogue.""The ministration of death was written and engraven on stone in the form of tencommandments." Read with verse 7 Ex. 31:18; 32:16. "Tables of stone *written*with the finger of God." "The writing of God, graven upon the tables." Howcan a candid man deny that Paul meant this very thing, the decalogue?
To the Galatians Paul also writes that the covenant of Sinai has gone. It will be seenthat he uses "covenant" and "law" as synonymous, showing that the lawwas the covenant.
"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it iswritten, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. Buthe who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was bypromise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from themount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Gal. 4:21-24. Here the oldlaw covenant of Sinai is declared to be "bondage" and he says "Be notentangled again with the yoke of bondage." Chap. 5:1.
So in Heb. 12:18-24, Paul distinctly says that Christians do not go to Sinai and thethunders of the law, but they come to Jesus and the new covenant. Read it all. Here are afew sentences: "For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and thatburned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest. And so terrible was thesight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: But ye are come unto Mount Sion. Andto Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."
Adventists are always dwelling upon the terrible scenes at Sinai at the giving of thelaw and pointing others there; but Paul says, No, do not go there; but to Mount Sion, toJesus and the new covenant.
So Jeremiah predicted the rejection of the covenant in the ark and that instead of it,men would seek to the name of the Lord at Jerusalem where the gospel went forth.
"In those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, the ark of the, covenantof the Lord: neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shallthey visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall call Jerusalemthe throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of theLord, to Jerusalem." Jer. 3:16,17.
Adventists are trying to revive the very thing the Lord said should be forgotten,"the ark of the covenant." All their study and worship is centered around thatjust as of old with the Jews. But the effort is vain. God has said it. Since the crossJesus and Jerusalem have been where all eyes have turned while the ark and old covenantare forgotten, just as the Lord said it would be. So Isa. 2:3; "Out of Zion shall goforth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." There is where we now go forthe law, not to the ark or to Sinai.
What Law Are Christians Under?
When God speaks, is it not sin to disobey? Surely it is. Paul says: "God, who atsundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son." Heb. 1:1,2. This says that Godhath spoken to men in various ways at different times. No matter in what way God's willwas expressed, it would have been sin to disobey. "If the law of Sinai is gone, thenthere is no law, no sin," say Adventists. Indeed, then it is impossible for God toreveal his will to men, except in those exact words, letter for letter! Who believes suchan absurdity? The whole controversy is reduced to simply this: Has God in the NewTestament, plainly and fully revealed his will to men and told them what is right and whatis wrong? Is the will of God revealed through his Son in the New Testament higherauthority than the Old Testament, or is it not? Are the teachings of the New Testament tobe modified to harmonize with the letter of the law in the Old Testament, or are theprecepts of the Old Testament to be modified to harmonize with the gospel? The latter,certainly. But the gospel nowhere enjoins the seventh day.
Then is not the word of the Lord Jesus Christ law? Could there be any higher law? SaidJesus, "I and my Father are one," John 10:30, and "All men should honor theSon even as they honor the Father." John 5:23. Then the words of Christ are to behonored as highly as the words of God. They are law the same as God's words are. Godpromised to raise up Christ and put his words in his mouth, and he should speak as Godcommanded him, Deut. 18:18. Jesus said his Father sent him and commanded him what to say,John 12:49,50. "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the lastday," verse 48. Then we shall be judged by the teachings of Christ, not by the oldlaw. Christians will be judged by the gospel. "In the day when God shall judge thesecrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Rom. 2:16. God said,"Hear ye him," Matt. 17:5. All authority in heaven and in earth is given to him,Matt. 28:18. "He taught them as one having authority," Matt. 7:29. He has a law,Gal. 6:2. "Fulfill the law of Christ." "The isles shall wait for hislaw." Isa. 42:4. We are under his law, 1 Cor. 9:21. "Under law to Christ,"Revised Version, "Under Christ's law," Diaglott. "Under the law of theMessiah," Syriac. The grandest summary of moral and religious truth the world everheard was the sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5-7. It is as much superior to the decalogue asgospel is superior to Judaism. Here Christ forbids murder, verses 21, 22; adultery, verses27, 28; swearing, verse 34; hypocrisy, 6:1-5; covetousness, 6:19-34; and every wrong act,7:12. Would it not be sin to disobey the precepts of Christ?
Jesus gave commandments to his disciples, Acts, 1:2, and commanded them to teach themto all nations. Matt. 28:18-20. We are to keep his commandments. John 14:15,21; 15:10.Then would it not be sin to break them? Who dare deny it? "Paul, an apostle of JesusChrist by the will of God," Eph. 1:1, said, "Put away lying," "sinnot," and "steal no more," Eph. 4:25-28, and, "The things I write untoyou are the commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor. 14:37. And yet Adventists will say,that if the old law is gone, there are no commandments against lying, stealing, etc. Weknow better, as the above teaches. Indeed Paul says, "I kept back nothing that wasprofitable unto you," "for I have not shunned to declare unto you all thecounsel of God." Acts 20:20, 27. Every sin of which the human heart is guilty, isplainly forbidden in the New Testament over and over by the authority of Christ and hisapostles, as all know. Yet nothing condemns sin but the decalogue!
The spirit of the Mosaic law, every moral principle in it, is reiterated over and overin the gospel, with all the authority of the Son of God. Not a Christian duty can be namedwhich is not taught in the New Testament. Not a single thing is forbidden by the OldTestament which it would be wrong for a Christian to do, which is not also forbidden inthe New, in some form. Excepting the Sabbath, the other nine commandments are in the NewTestament, either in the same words or in substance.
Then is the Old Testament to be thrown away? God forbid. It should be received as theinspired word of God, a mine of precious truth; but it must be studied in the light of theNew Testament, and modified by it. Nothing should be required of Christians simply becauseit is found in the law of the Old Testament. To bind our consciences, it must be requiredby the New Testament. Here the seventh day fails entirely, for there is no requirement inall the New Testament to keep it; but its abrogation is plainly taught.
"The Commandments Of God" In The New Testament
Seventh-Day Adventists have much to say about "the commandments of God," Rev.14:12, and claim that these are the ten commandments. With them "thecommandments" always means just the decalogue, nothing more. Wherever they find thisterm they thus apply it. But such a position is wholly erroneous. There are over 800 textswhere the phrase, "the commandments," in its various forms is used. I havecarefully examined every one of them. I find that it is a general term for all therequirements of the Bible. According to my best judgment, in forty-nine cases out of fiftyit means something more than the ten commandments. Let the reader examine the followingtexts:
Lev. 22 refers wholly to the duties of the priests and the offering of sacrifices. Whatthe Lord commanded about these he calls his "commandments." Verse 31. In Deut.11:27,28, what Moses commanded is called "the commandments of God." In Deut.26:12,13, the term is used of the law of tithing. In Deut. 28:1, it is applied to all thatMoses commanded them. With a concordance, any person can readily find hundreds of caseswhere this term means something more than the decalogue. When Jesus was questioned aboutthe law he named as the greatest "commandments," two entirely outside of theten. See Matt. 22:35-40.
So the precepts of Christ and His apostles are often called commandments. Jesus says:"The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say." John12:49. If God gave Christ commandments, and He gave them to His church, would they not bethe commandments of God? Certainly. The old dispensation was passing away, and the Lordwas proclaiming the commandments of God for the new dispensation, the gospel. So in thegreat commission He said, "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I havecommanded you." Matt. 28:20.
Again Jesus said, John 14:15,21, "If ye love me, keep my commandments.""He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he thatloveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself tohim." How can we, in the face of these plain texts, say that Jesus gave nocommandments? Who is it that loves Christ? He that keeps his commandments. This is what itis in the New Testament to be a commandment keeper. So again John 15:10,14: "If ye,keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father'scommandments and abide in his love." "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever Icommand you."
If, then, we do what Jesus commands us, is not that enough? And shall we not be safeand sure of his love and the love of his Father? But where did Jesus ever command to keepthe seventh day? Nowhere. So Luke says he was taken up, "after that he through theHoly Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." Acts 1:2. IfJesus gave commandments through the Holy Ghost, would they not be the commandments of God?Are not these equal to those given through Moses? Now hear Paul as to what are thecommandments in the gospel: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of theLord." I Cor. 14:37.
Then all Paul's writings are "the commandments of God." And the Apostle says,Let those who are spiritual acknowledge it. Will our Seventh-day brethren acknowledge it?They may see a new meaning in "the commandments of God," Rev. 14:12, if theywill. Again Paul says, "For ye know what commandments we gave you by the LordJesus," 1 Thess. 4:2. Then the Apostles did give commandments by the authority of theLord Jesus. Peter bears a similar testimony. 2 Peter 3:2. "That ye may be mindful ofthe words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandments of us theapostles of the Lord and Savior." *Entole*, the Greek word for commandment, occurs inthe New Testament, in its singular and plural forms, sixty-eight times. In at leastforty-eight of these cases it cannot mean the decalogue, and in over half of the others itis used in a general way. In not a single case is it certain that it means all the ten andnothing more. There is not a hint that it means the decalogue in any one of the threepassages where it occurs in Revelation. To claim that it does is to assume withoutevidence the very point to be proved. John, who wrote the book of Revelation, also wrotethe gospel of John and the three epistles of John. He uses the word"commandments," plural and singular, twenty-eight times, and in not a singlecase does it refer to the ten commandments; but in nearly every case, if not in all, itrefers to the commandments of Jesus. See John 14:15,21; 15:10; 1 John 2:1-5; 3:22-24;4:21; 5:1-3. And naturally we would suppose that he means the same thing by commandmentsin Rev. 14:12.
As Christ is our "Lord and Master," John 13:13, the "Head" of thechurch, Eph. 1:22; "All and in all," Col. 3:11; having "all power in heavenand in earth," Matt. 28:18; and is to judge the world, John 5:22; at his judgmentseat, Rom. 14:10; how reasonable that he should give the laws to that church. This is justwhat he did do, Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:1,2. If any one will obey the teachings of Christhe need not fear about his salvation.
For the convenience of the reader, we will arrange here in order an examination of allprominent texts used by Seventh-Day Adventists on the Sabbath or the law. Where the texthas been fully examined in the body of the work, we will refer to the chapter where itwill be found.
* Gen. 2:1-3. See Chapter XIII., page 249. * Gen. 26:5. Abraham kept the Sabbath.Abraham kept God's "commandments and laws." This was the ten commandments,therefore he kept the Sabbath.
ANSWER: 1. They assume the very thing to be proved, viz: that this was the tencommandments. 2. This was 430 years before the decalogue was given. Gal. 3:16, 17. Howcould he keep what was not yet given? 3. Anything which God commanded at any time would be"his commandments," and this would vary with circumstances. What Moses requiredis called "God's commandments." Deut. 28:1, 15. Says Paul, "What I writeunto you are the commandments of the Lord.". 1 Cor. 14:37. "Sacrifice to theLord our God as he shall command us." Ex. 8:27. The Lord's directions to Noah aboutthe ark were God's commandments. Gen. 6:22. To circumcise was one of the commandments ofGod to Abraham, which he kept. Gen. 21:4. So Abraham obeyed all God told him to do. Hence,this text has no reference to the ten commandments, nor to the Sabbath.
* Ex. 16:23-30. See Chapter XIII., page 254. * Ex. 20:1-17. The decalogue. See ChapterXVIII. * Ex. 31:13-17. The Sabbath forever. See page 259. * Lev. 23. The yearly Sabbaths.See Chapter XV. * Lev. 23:38. "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord."
It is claimed by Seventh-Day Adventists that the Lord here separates out the Sabbathfrom all other holy days, showing that it is of a different nature, in these words, verses37, 38: "These are the feasts of the Lord: * * * beside the Sabbaths of theLord." Yes, but read the whole verse, "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord, andbeside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your free-will offerings,which ye give unto the Lord." Not only the Sabbath, but gifts, vows and offerings arealso excepted with the Sabbath in the same verse. The idea is this: the Sabbath, thegifts, vows and offerings are of regular weekly or daily occurrence, whereas the otherholy days and special offerings were to come only once a year at stated seasons. Whenthese yearly offerings and holy days came at the same time of the regular daily or weeklyservice they were not to take the place of the regular daily and weekly services, but mustbe observed besides all these. Any one can see that this is the simple meaning of thewords "beside the Sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts," etc. The idea isnot to distinguish the Sabbath above the other feasts, but to say that these must be keptin addition to the regular service of the Sabbath and the daily offerings.
* Deut. 31:24-26. Two laws, one in the ark and another in the side of it. See ChapterXVII., page 309. * 2 Kings 21:8. Two laws. "If they will observe to do according toall that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Mosescommanded them."
It is claimed that this shows two laws, one given by God, the moral law, the decalogue;the other by Moses, the ceremonial, the one written in the book. Well, Moses in the bookgave the law, "Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart," Deut. 6:5, and"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," Lev. 19:18. These, then, must beceremonial! No, there is no difference made between what God gave himself or gave byMoses. Indeed, the greatest commandments of all he gave by Moses. Matt. 22:36-40. 2 Kings21:8, is loosely worded, that is all. Read the same text in 2 Chron. 33:8. "If onlythey will observe to do all that I have commanded them, even all the law and the statutesand the ordinances by the hand of Moses." Revised Version. That makes it plain. Godgave them all by the hand of Moses. See also Neh. 8:14.
* 1 Chron. 16:15-17. The decalogue for 1,000 generations. Adventists claim that thiscovenant is the ten commandments. Hence it was given to the patriarchs and must be keptfor ages yet, as less than 200 generations have passed since Adam. So this law mustcontinue at least 800 generations yet.
ANSWER: 1. The term "a thousand generations" is manifestly an expressionmeaning an indefinitely long time, not exactly 1000 generations, no more, no less. If theworld must stand 800 generations yet, what becomes of Adventism! So they can not take itliterally themselves. Hence it may have ended ages ago. 2. As this is poetry, verse 7, thelicense of poetry is used. 3. The "covenant" here mentioned is not the covenantof ten commandments, for Moses says expressly that the fathers did not have the covenantof the decalogue. Deut. 5:2, 4. But this covenant was made with Abraham. 1 Chron. 16:16.4. The covenant here referred to is God's promise to give Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, andJacob. See verse 18. "Saying, unto thee will I give the land of Canaan." SeeGen. 15:18, 26:3; 28:13. So it has no reference to the decalogue.
* Neh. 9:13, 14. Two laws. God gave them one set of laws himself and then gave anotherset by Moses. Read it.
ANSWER: it is true that one part of the law was given in one way and another part inanother way. But this neither says nor intimates that therefore they were different lawsand of a different nature. See remarks on 2 Kings 21:8.
* Ps. 19:7. The law perfect. Adventists constantly quote this text as proof that theten commandments are a perfect law and hence could not be changed.
ANSWER: An examination of this text will answer nine-tenths of all their law texts inthe Bible. So we will make the answer here and refer to this from the other texts. Thegrand fallacy of all their arguments is the assumption that "the law" is justthe ten commandments, nothing more, nothing less. Hence they ring the changes on "thelaw," "the law," without end. But remember "the law" means thewhole system of law given to the Jews on Sinai, including moral, civil and ceremonialprecepts, sacrifices, priesthood, circumcision, feasts, etc. Smith's Bible Dictionary,Art. Law, says that the law refers "in nine cases out of ten to the Mosaic law, or tothe Pentateuch." Elder Butler confesses, "The term 'the law,' among the Jewsgenerally included the five books of Moses." Law in Galatians, page 70. Don't forgetthis fact and you will have little trouble with Advent arguments on "the law."
"The law," "the law of the Lord," and "the law of Moses,"are all the same and include circumcision and sacrifices. Proof: Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27; 2Chron.31:3. Again: "The law," "the law of Moses," "the, book ofthe law," and "'the law of God," are all the same. Proof: Neh. 8:2, 3, 8,14, 18.
Now what is meant by "the law" and "the law of the Lord" in thePsalms? It means all the law God gave Israel, that which was written in the "book ofthe law." Proof: David who wrote the Psalms was king of Israel. God required the kingto keep a copy of "the book of the law" always by him and read in it every dayof his life, Deut. 17:15-19. The first Psalm refers to this: His "delight is in thelaw of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Verse 2. David asking read the law of Moses every day and to this he refers all through the Psalms.Adventists are constantly quoting Ps. 119 as meaning only the ten commandments. But"the law" here includes the whole law God gave Israel, moral, civil, ceremonial,all. Proof: Verse 128. "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to beright." David regarded God's precepts concerning tithes, sacrifices, feasts, publicworship, moral duties, etc., as all right. Nine-tenths of "the law of the Lord"Seventh-Day Adventists do not pretend to keep any more than Sunday keepers do. If, then,we are law-breakers, so are they.
It is probable that Ps. 19:7, has a wider meaning than even the Mosaic law. Themarginal reading is: "The doctrine of the Lord is perfect." Dr. Scott on thisverse says: "The word here translated 'law' may be rendered doctrine, and beunderstood as a general name for divine revelation, as then extant, the law of Moses beingthe principal part." Dr. Clarke, the Eclectic Commentary, and all I have consultedgive the same interpretation. How narrow and unauthorized, then, is the interpretationwhich confines this text to simply the decalogue. It is by such unnatural methods that theseventh day is sustained.
* Ps. 40:8. The law in Jesus' heart. "Lo, I come. * * * Thy law is within myheart." This refers to Christ. Adventists say that Jesus kept the law, the tencommandments, and therefore we should.
ANSWER: 1. See how they always assume that "the law" is just the decalogue.See this answered above on Ps. 19:7. 2. Jesus kept all the law of Moses, just as otherJews did. Do Adventists do it? Do they keep the law as Jesus did? No. Then their argumentis a failure. 3. Jesus loved all the law and came to fulfill it. Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44;and did fulfill it all at the cross. Acts 13:29. Hence "Christ is the end of thelaw." Rom. 10:4.
* Ps. 89:27-36. God will not alter his covenant.
Seventh-Day Adventists claim a strong case here. The prophecy refers to Christ. If hisdisciples break God's law, statutes, or commandments, God will punish them. God will notbreak his covenant nor alter what went out of his lips, the decalogue.
ANSWER: Assumptions are easy and do for the uninformed. God's law is the whole law. Seeabove on Ps. 19:7. The covenant and what went out of God's lips has no reference to thedecalogue, but refers to God's covenant with David to give him a son to sit on his throne.See verses 3, 4, 19, 33-35. This is too plain to be denied. Thus vanishes another of theirgrand proof texts.
* Ps. 119. The law exalted. Every verse in this long Psalm teaches the sacredness andperpetuity of the law.
ANSWER: But the law is the whole Mosaic law which the king studied daily and whichIsrael was to keep. See my notes on Ps. 19:7. Are Christians to keep that law? No.Seventh-Day Adventists even don't keep it.
* Prov. 28:9. Must not turn away from the law. He that turns away from the law, hisprayer is abomination. Those who break the Sabbath do this and God does not hear theirplayers.
ANSWER: Seventh-Day Adventists turn away their ears from nine-tenths of that law, forit embraces sacrifices, feasts, circumcision, etc., none of which they do. See my notes onPs. 19:7, for proof. So this text does them no good.
* Eccl. 12:13, 14. The ten commandments cover the whole duty of man. "Keep God'scommandments, for this is the whole duty of man." These are just the tencommandments. Hence they are perfect. We need no other law. Being perfect it cannot beabrogated nor changed. All will be judged by it. Verse 14. So say Seventh-Day Adventists.
ANSWER: This is a soap bubble which vanishes with a touch. 1. Does it say that theseare the ten commandments, no more, no less? No, they assume this, for they have no proofof it. See my note on Gen. 26:5, and Ps. 19:7. The commandments are anything God hascommanded on any subject. 2. Solomon, a king of Israel wrote this to Israel, 1,000 yearsbefore Christ. Did the decalogue cover the whole duty of a man then? Was it not a duty topay tithes, keep the feasts, offer sacrifices, be circumcised and a hundred other thingsabout which the ten commandments are silent? Certainly it was. Then they did not cover thewhole duty of man, and this text is misapplied by Adventists. Nor does the decalogue coverall the duty of man now, nor a tithe of it. Where does it require us to visit the sick,the poor, the widow and orphans, to be sober, patient, and loving? Nowhere. It ismanifest, then, that the commandments here spoken of which did cover all man's duty,embraces all that God had commanded on all subjects, moral, civil, or religious. 3. Thatlaw has been fulfilled and ended at the cross. Eph. 2:15; Gal. 3:19-25. Adventiststhemselves do not keep it.
* Isa. 42:21. Jesus magnifies the law. "He will magnify the law and make ithonorable." This is the decalogue. If Jesus magnified it he could not have abolishedit; if he set it aside he would not have honored it.
ANSWER: See the ready assumption again that "the law" is just the decalogue.Does it say so? No. If the reader will bear in mind once for all that "the law"is the whole Mosaic code, he will easily dispose of all their proof texts. Jesus didmagnify the law; first, by carefully observing every precept of that law, both moral andceremonial; second, by fulfilling all its predictions and types, thus accomplishing theobject for which it was given. Seventh-Day Adventists themselves claim that Christabolished the ceremonial law. Well, did he thereby belittle and dishonor that law? Theydare not say so. No, he magnified and honored it, as they must admit. Then a law can behonored and magnified, and yet set aside as having fulfilled its purpose. This is justwhat Christ did to the law as a whole. See my notes on Rom. 3:31.
* Isa. 56, the Sabbath to be restored. See page 261. * Isa. 58:12, 13. The Sabbathrestored. See Chapter XIII., page 262. * Isa. 66:22, 23. The Sabbath in the New Earth. SeeChapter XIII., page 262. * Ez. 22:26. The breach in the law. See page 262. * Dan. 7:25.The pope to change the Sabbath. "He shall think to change times and laws." Thisrefers to the pope. He was to change God's law, the decalogue. He changed the Sabbath andthus changed times.
ANSWER: 1. It does not say that it was the decalogue; this they assume. 2. To changethe fourth commandment and the Sabbath would change only one law and one time; but theprophecy says laws and times, both plural. This shows that the prophecy is of much widerscope than they give it. 3. There is not a word of truth in the assertion that the popechanged the Sabbath. See Chap. XI of this book. So this application is false. 4. The oldlaw was changed by Christ, not by the pope. Paul says: "There is made of necessity achange also of the law." Heb. 7:12. Many other scriptures declare plainly that Jesusfulfilled the law and ended it at the cross. Gal. 3:19-25; Rom. 10:4; Col. 2:14-17. Thisprophecy applies during the gospel age and so refers to the law of Christ, not to the oldlaw of Sinai which ended at the cross. So their theory is wholly false. 5. In a hundredways the pope has fulfilled this prediction outside of the Sabbath by legislating for thechurch in many things contrary to the laws of Christ. The Jews' translation says he shall"change the festivals and the law." See the scores of festival days which thepope has made, as Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, St. Patrick's Day, AllSaint's Day, etc. This is what the prophecy means. Scott says: "Has it not multipliedits holy days till scarcely four of the six working days have been left?" Clarkesays: "Appointing fasts and feasts, * * * new modes of worship, * * * new articles offaith." This is what the prophecy foretold. It has no reference to the Sabbath.
* Matt. 5:17-19. Till heaven and earth pass away. Jesus says he did not come to destroythe law, but to fulfill it. And "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittleshall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Whoever breaks any one ofthese commandments is guilty. This law is the decalogue. Jesus says that every jot andtittle of it will stand till heaven and earth pass away. This shows that this law isunchangeable and still binding. The Sabbath is a part of it and therefore the seventh daymust still be kept.
ANSWER: Seventh-Day Adventists consider this the strongest text in the New Testamentfor the law. They are constantly quoting it. If this fails, they have no stronger fort. Iam sure it teaches no such thing as they claim. 1. Seventh-Day Adventists themselves admitthat Jesus fulfilled and ended what they called the ceremonial law. He abolished it at thecross. Well, did he come to destroy that law? Certainly not, and yet he did it away. So,then, it is one thing to destroy a law, and quite another to bring it to a close byfulfilling it. He says he came to fulfill the law. 2. It does not say that every jot andtittle of the law will stand till heaven and earth pass away; but it does say that it willnot pass away until it is all fulfilled. This teaches that it would all be fulfilled andpass away sometime. The idea is that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than oneletter of the law would fail of being fulfilled. Luke's words make this matter very clear."It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail,"Luke 16:17. Here we cannot mistake the meaning; the idea is not the length of time the lawis to last, but the certainty that it will not fail to be fulfilled. "Fulfilled"is defined thus by Webster: "To fill up, to make full or complete; toaccomplish." The Greek word is PLAROSAI and is defined by Greenfield, among otherthings, "To fulfill, to complete; to bring to a close, end, finish, complete."So Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to finish it. The translation of Campbell,Macknight and Doddridge renders it: "Heaven and earth shall sooner perish than oneiota or one tittle of the law shall perish without attaining its end." That is theidea exactly. Sawyer's translation says: "I am not come to destroy, but tocomplete." At the beginning of his ministry Jesus said he came to fulfill the law.After his resurrection he said: "These are the words which I spake unto you, while Iwas yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law ofMoses, and in the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Luke 24:44. And then Paul says:"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from thetree." Acts 13:29. So it was all fulfilled at the cross. Hence Paul says it wasnailed to the cross. Col. 2:14-16. "Christ is the end of the law." Rom. 10:4."The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified byfaith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal.3:24, 25. What could be plainer than that the law ended at the cross? 3. The law herespoken of is not simply the decalogue, but the whole law of Moses. No candid man will denythis. All commentators and scholars admit it. The proof is abundant. Thus: "The lawand the prophets was a customary phrase for the whole Old Testament." Whedon'sCommentary (Methodist) on Matt. 5:17. "By the law or prophets are meant the writingsof the Old Testament including the five books of Moses called the law, and the writing ofthe prophets or rest of the Old Testament." Notes on Matt. 5:17 by George W. Clarke."As everywhere else, so here the word NOMOS (law) refers to the whole law, and notmerely to the decalogue." Lange's Com. on Matt. 5:17. "By TON NOMON (the law)must be meant, in some sense, the law of Moses." Bloomfield's Notes on Matt. 5:17."The law and the prophets summarily denote the whole Old Testament revelation."Meyer's Commentary on Matt. 5:17. "By the law and the prophets is here meant the OldTestament in general." Bible Commentary. Dr. Albert Barnes says on this text:"The law - the five books of Moses called the law. The prophets - the books which theprophets wrote. These two divisions here seem to comprehend the Old Testament." Soall commentators.
The Jewish scriptures were divided into the "book of the law," which includedthe five books of Moses, and the "book of the prophets," which included thebooks written by the prophets, as the historical books, etc. Sometimes a third divisionwas recognized, viz: the Psalms, or poetical books. I have before me the Jews' Bible whichis divided that way. Portions from the book of the law and also from the prophets wereread in the synagogues every Sabbath. This division of the Old Testament is often referredto in the New Testament. Paul says: "All things which are written in the book of thelaw." Gal. 3:10. Again: "It is written in the book of the prophets." Acts7:42. Once more: "After the reading of the law and the prophets." Acts 13:15.Hence "the law and the prophets" became a common term for the whole OldTestament. The law was the five books of Moses. Read a few texts: "This is the lawand the prophets." Matt. 7:12. "All the law and the prophets prophesied untilJohn," Matt. 11:13. Here the law can not mean just the decalogue, for the lawprophesied. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:40. "The law and the prophets were until John." "They have Moses and theprophets." "If they hear not Moses and the prophets." Luke 16:16, 29, 31.Here the law and the prophets is the same as Moses and the prophets. "Him of whomMoses is the law and the prophets did write." John 1:45. "Beginning at Moses andall the prophets," "which was written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,and in the Psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:27, 44. "All things written in thelaw and in the prophets." Acts 25:14. "Which the prophets and Moses didsay." Acts 26:22. Paul preached "out of the law of Moses and out of theprophets." Acts 28:23. "Witnessed by the law and the prophets." Rom. 3:21.See how common this phrase was then for the whole Old Testament. Hence Jesus said, "Iam not come to destroy the law or the prophets." Matt. 8:17. In the light of theabove facts any one can see that Jesus here meant the whole Old Testament the same as inall the other texts.
In proof of this, notice that he mentions various parts of the law-murder, altar, gift,adultery, swearing, eye for an eye, divorce, love to enemies, etc., verses 21-43. Is allthis in the decalogue? No, it is in the book of the law.
It is absurd to say that he meant only the decalogue and the prophets. This would leaveout the books of Moses entirely. So, then, the law here is the whole law of Moses. Now ifevery jot and tittle of that law is binding till the end of the world, then we have thewhole Jewish law to keep as well as the Sabbath. This shows the fallacy of the Seventh-DayAdventists' position. The simple truth is that Christ fulfilled the law and it passed awayafter serving its purpose.
* Matt. 19:16-22. The commandments to be kept. The young man asks what to do to haveeternal life. Jesus said, "Keep the commandments." When asked which, he said, Donot murder, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness; honor father andmother and love your neighbor as yourself. Here Jesus teaches that we must keep thecommandments to have life. He then quotes five of the ten showing that to be the law hemeant. The Sabbath is a part of that law, hence we must keep it.
ANSWER: 1. It is noticeable that Jesus omits the Sabbath not only here but on all otheroccasions like it. 2. Of course no one could gain eternal life and break the commandmentswhich Jesus mentioned. 3. And it is manifest he did not mention all the commandments whichmust be kept. 4. If it is said that in quoting a part of the decalogue, he thereby impliedand endorsed the whole of it as binding, then we reply that by quoting a part of the lawof Moses he thereby bound all the rest of that law upon us also. The command to love yourneighbor is not in the decalogue but in "the book of the law." So in Mark 10:19,he quotes "defraud not" from Lev. 19:13, the law of Moses. Is then all theLevitical law binding on us because Jesus quoted a part of it? No. Then it by no meansfollows that the whole of a law is binding on us because Jesus quotes a part of it to ayoung man still under that law. We object to swallowing a whole ox because we are toldthat a piece of the flesh is good.
We should remember that at this time both Jesus and the young man were still under thelaw. Jesus often adapted his instructions to the time and circumstances. To the cleansedleper, Jesus said, "Go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift thatMoses commanded." Matt. 8:4. Shall we apply this to Christians now and conclude thatthey must offer gifts according to Moses? Of course not, for he was yet under the law andwe are not. Again Christ said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Alltherefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." Matt. 23:2, 3.
Here they were directed to observe every item of the Mosaic law just as the Phariseestaught. Why don't Adventists quote that to prove we must keep the Sabbath, for itcertainly included the Sabbath? This shows that Christ's directions about keeping theJewish law were to those still under the law and not for all time to come. It isnoticeable that Jesus never stated directly that any of the old law would be abolished,not even the sacrifices, the temple-service, circumcision, etc. The time had not come; thepeople were not yet ready for it.
So this young Pharisee came as one looking to the law and his own deeds forrighteousness. "What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" Jesusanswered him according to his question and according to his duty under the law, that lawto which he was looking for salvation. "Thou knowest the commandments," dothese, for the law said, "The man that doeth them shall live in them." Gal.3:12. It is evident that Jesus did this to take the conceit out of him and to show him hisneed of something better. He succeeded, for the young man went away sorrowful and humbled.
* Matt. 24:20. The Sabbath A. D. 70. See Chapter XIV., page 270. * Matt. 28:1."The Sabbath" still after the cross. See Chapter XIV., page 272. Mark 2:27. TheSabbath for man. See page 269. * Luke 23:5-6. The women kept the Sabbath. See ChapterXIV., page 273. * Acts 13:14; 18:4, etc. Paul kept the Sabbath. See Chapter XIV., page278. * Rom. 3:31. The law established. "Do we then make void the law through faith?God forbid, yea, we establish the law." The law is the ten commandments. It is notabolished but established. This is a positive statement that the law is still bindingunder the gospel. The Sabbath is a part of the law and therefore must be kept.
ANSWER: 1. A few isolated texts cannot be interpreted to conflict with the generaltenor, and many direct statements of the New Testament that we are not under the law butthat it ceased at the cross. 2. There is nothing in the text or context that says orintimates that it is the decalogue only of which Paul speaks. 3. Paul has argued throughthese three chapters that no one has ever kept the law, neither Gentiles nor Jews. So hereasons that no one can be justified by "the law of works," but all can bejustified "by the law of faith." Chap. 3:27. Then he "concludes that a manis justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Verse 28. Then he anticipatesthat some one will object that he is an Antinomian, setting aside all law. Verse 31. Thishe denies. Because the Jewish law is abrogated, it by no means follows that all law isabolished. So he says: "Do we then nullify law through the faith? By no means, but weestablish law." Diaglott. This is a literal translation of the Greek and gives theidea correctly. Paul does not say THE law, but simply LAW in general. The definite article"the" is not used before law in the original. Hence in this verse we understandPaul to speak of law in general and not of "the law" of Sinai. Here are otherreliable translations of the text, giving the same idea. "Do we then make void lawthrough the faith? Far be it, yea, we establish law." American Bible UnionTranslation. "Do we, then, make law useless through the faith? By no means, but weestablish law." Campbell, Macknight and Dodridge. "Do we, then, make law of noneeffect through faith? God forbid; nay, we establish law." Revised Version, marginalreading. The marginal reading in this Version where it differs from the authorized text asit does here, was supported by two-thirds of the learned translators present at the lastreading. (See their preface.) This, then, is well supported.
Hence this text does not speak of the decalogue, nor even of the Mosaic law, but of lawin the abstract. Paul affirms that faith in Christ does not nullify the use of law. Thisis exactly what I believe. God's great moral law remains unchanged through all ages, whileparticular expressions of that law adapted to local circumstances as was the Jewish law,may be changed.
If it be insisted that this must be the law given to the Jews, then we reply: The lawwould be the whole Mosaic law, not the decalogue alone. Dr. Adam Clarke gives a sufficientanswer to the Adventists: "By law here we may understand the whole of the Mosaic lawin its rites and ceremonies, of which Jesus Christ was the subject and the end. All thatlaw had respect to him, and the doctrine of faith in Jesus Christ, which the Christianreligion proclaimed, established the very claims and demands of that law, by showing thatall was accomplished in the passion and death of Christ." On Rom. 3:31. So this textin no way favors the Adventist idea, though it is their main hope.
* Rom. 6:14, 15. "NOT UNDER THE LAW."
Several times Paul says directly that Christians are "not under the law." SeeRom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 3:23-25; 4:2l; 5:18. It would seem as though that ought to settle itthat Christians are not to be governed by that law: for surely if we are not under a lawwe are under no obligation to obey it. Living in Michigan, I am under the law of thisstate; but I am not under the law of England, hence it has no claim on me. So if we arenot under the law it has no claims on us. In opposition to the plain meaning of this term,Seventh-Day Adventists say that it means that we are not under the curse or condemnationof the law. But Paul does not say that we are not under the curse of the law; but it isthe law itself that we are not under. Every text where the term occurs shows that it meansunder the authority of the law.
This subject is so plain that Seventh-Day Adventists themselves are divided over it,one party writing against the other. Elder Waggoner leads one party and Elder Butler theother. I quote from Butler against Waggoner in "The Law in Galatians," pages 51,52. "But it is thought that in this verse (Gal. 3:23) the expression 'under the law'must refer to the sinner under the condemnation of the moral law. Lengthy arguments havebeen made in support of this; but we fail to see evidence to prove this position."Then he admits to the other party that "under the law" sometimes means under itscondemnation though this is not its primary meaning. He had to say this to save himself onother texts, but I deny that it ever has that meaning. He continues: "We read inMatt. 8:9, of a man under authority having soldiers under him, i. e., authority was overhim and he was in authority over the soldiers, and each was to obey; not that he was underthe condemnation of authority, or the soldiers under his condemnation. * * * The verynature of the expression itself signifies this, 'under the law' simply meaning the lawbeing above or having authority over the persons who were under it. This is the primary,simplest meaning of the term; and unless strong reasons can be adduced to the contrary, weshould always give the expression 'this signification." "Greenfield gives noinstance where it is used in the sense of being subject to the condemnation of thelaw." "We are no longer under a pedagogue (the law), i.e., no longer under hisauthority; his authority is no longer over us because his office ceased when the seedcame." So writes Elder Butler, and he states the truth: but he tries to limit this tothe ceremonial law. Here he fails, for it is "the law," not a part of it.
Here is what the lexicons say of the word under: "In relation to something thatgoverns. In a state of subjection; subject." Webster. Under is from the Greek word"hupo," which is thus defined: "Of subjection to a law. Rom. 6:14."Greenfield: "To express subjection;" "under his sway;" under itsguidance;" "subject to." Liddell and Scott. "Subject to." GrovesGr. and Eng. Dict. "Under subjection to, Rom. 14." Bagster's Gr. Lex. So all theauthorities I have consulted define "under" to mean under the authority of,subject to. Now Paul says, "Ye are not under the law," Rom. 6:14; that is, notunder its authority, not subject to it. This is plain enough.
Turning to the commentators, I read: "Under the law; in subjection to it."Clarke on Gal. 4:4. "Subject to the law," "Bound by its requirements."Barnes on Gal. 4:4. "Not under the law; not under a legal dispensation."American Tract Society, notes on Rom. 6:14. "Under the law, under the legaldispensation." Scott on Gal. 3:23-25.
Thus all agree, that "under the law" means subject to its authority. But weare not under the law, not under its anthority. Read a few texts as to its meaning."Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah." 2 Kings 8:20. "Israel wentout from under the hand of the Syrians." 2 Kings 13:5. "Ye purpose to keep underthe children of Judah." 2 Chron. 28:10. In every case it means under the authorityof. Again: "A man under authority, having 13 soldiers under me," Matt. 8:9."Ye are not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6:14. "And unto the JewsI became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as underthe law, that I might gain them that are under the law." "To them that arewithout law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ),that I might gain them that are without law." 1 Cor. 9:20-21.
This passage shows beyond a doubt what Paul means by "under the law." TheJews were under the law. When with them he did as they did to gain them. He kept the lawas they did. See for proof Acts 16:3, where he circumcised Timothy, and Acts 21:20-26,where he shaved his head and offered offerings. Those without law were the Gentiles whowere never under the Jewish law. When with them he lived as they did to gain them. He didnot keep the Mosaic law. But Paul is careful to add that he was under the law to Christ,or more correctly, "Under law to Christ." Revised Version. "Under Christ'slaw." Diaglott. "Under the law of the Messiah." Syriac. "Under the lawof Christ." Clarke. "The law enjoined of Christ." Barnes. Paul says he wasunder Christ's law. Does he mean that he was condemned by the law of Christ? Surely not;but he was under its authority.
Again: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faithwhich should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring usunto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are nolonger under a schoolmaster." Gal. 3:23-25.
When were people under the law? Before Christ came. Are they under it now? No. Thisshows what Paul means - a change of dispensations changed their relations to the law.Before Christ, under the law; since Christ, not under it.
Before Christ came they were under the law as a teacher who was preparing them for thegreat Teacher. When Christ came they were no longer under that old schoolmaster, the law.Proceeding with his argument, Paul says: "But when the fullness of the time was come,God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. 4:4. This again isdecisive as to the meaning of "under the law." Christ was born under the law,that is, subject to the law the same as any Jew. He carefully obeyed that law till it wasabolished at His cross. He certainly was not born under the condemnation of the law, forhe was without sin. To the Galatians who were going back to the observance of the law Paulsays: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?"Gal. 4:21. Did they desii-e to be under the curse of the law? Nonsense. They desired toobey the law just as Adventists do now. Finally Paul says to them, "If ye be led ofthe Spirit, ye are not under the law." Gal. 5:18. If they accepted Christ, they hadno further need for the old law. So, then, Christians are not under the authority of thelaw for it was nailed to the cross. On this point Dr. Adam Clarke forcibly says:"Under the law: In subjection to it, that in Him, all its designs might be fulfilled,and by His death, the whole might be abolished, the law dying when the son of God expiredupon the cross." On Gal. 4:4.
That "under the law" means subject to the authority of the law is plainlyproven by Rom. 3:19. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith tothem who are under the law." The Jew readily admitted that all the Gentiles weresinners; but the point was to prove that the Jews themselves were also sinners. So inverses 10-18 he makes several quotations from their scripture, saying that, "There isnone righteous, no, not one," etc. "Now," says Paul, "you cannot applythis to the Gentiles, for it is in your own law, and we know that a law speaks to thosewho are subject to it and not to those who are not. So it must mean that not one of youJews are righteous. Hence, as all the Gentles are sinners, and this proves that all Jewsare sinners too, therefore all the world are guilty." Again Paul argues that the lawspeaks only to "those who are under the law." But does the law speak only tothose who are condemned by it? That is false and absurd. To every man in Michigan our lawsays, "you shall not steal," whether they have stolen or not. So the Mosaic lawwas addressed to all the Jews. "Hearken, 0 Israel, unto the statutes and unto thejudgments which I teach you." Deut. 4:1. Who was to hearken to that law? All Israel,for it spoke to them all. This fact was so manifest that Paul said, "Now we know thatwhat things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." What,then, does he mean by under the law? He means under the authority of the law, subject tothe law, and this is what it always means. But Paul says over and over that Christians"are not under the law."
But Adventists immediately exclaim, "Then, if we are not under the law, we can sinall we like, can steal, lie, kill, etc." They never seem to notice that this isprecisely what the Judaizers, the opponents of Paul, said against his doctrine back there.He states their objection and answers it. "Ye are not under the law, but under grace,What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? Godforbid." Rom. 6:14, 15.
The fact that it was objected to Paul that his doctrine of the law gave license to sinshows that he did set aside the authority of the law. If not, why was this objection madeto his doctrine? The Jews believed in the pardon of sin as strongly as Paul did. So if hemerely taught that the sinner was pardoned by grace so that he was no longer under thecondemnation of the law, the Jews would agree with him for they all believed in the pardonof sins. The fact that this objection was raised to Paul's position on the law the same asit is to our position now, shows that we have interpreted him correctly.
* Rom. 7. The law is holy. Verse 12. "Wherefore the law is holy and thecommandment holy, and just and good." This is the decalogue as shown by verse 7. Aslate as A.D. 60, Paul said it was holy, just, good, and spiritual, verse 14, and that hedelighted in it, verse 22. Certainly then it was not abolished.
Answer: Whoever has access to Dr. Clarke's Commentary on this chapter will find theSeventh-Day Adventist argument fully and finely answered. I will note but a few points.Paul had just stated that we are not under the law. Chap. 6:14. Now he illustrates it. Awoman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. She is under his law, his authority. Ifhe dies, "she is free from that law." Verse 3. This is not the law of the state,nor the moral law, nor the law of Moses, but it is "the law of her husband,"Verse 2, as Paul distinctly says. That law under which she has been living dies with herhusband and she is freed from it, no longer bound to do his will, but is free to giveherself to another.
Just so the Jews had been held under the authority of the Mosaic law. That he writesthis to the Jewish believers at Rome is proved by the first verse. "I speak to themthat know the law."
But the law died and so the connection between them was dissolved and its authority wasended, This is Paul's conclusion as stated by himself: "But now we are delivered fromthe law, that being dead wherein we were held."
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead."Verses 4, 6. No statement could be plainer: we are delivered from the law which is dead.And we are dead to the law. Now we can be married to Christ. Says Dr. Albert Barnes onverse 4: "The idea there is, that death dissolves a connection from which obligationresulted. This is the single point of the illustration. It is an error to make everythingin this illustration fit something in the case of the Roman church. Like all parables, ithas just one object and that is to show the dissolution of a connection before existing,the end of an authority once in force. The Jewish believers were once under the Mosaiclaw. That law is dead and they are freed from its authority. Now they can accept theauthority of another, the Lord Jesus." Says Dr. Clarke: "AS LONG AS HE LIVETH.Or as long as IT liveth: law does not extend its influence to the dead, nor do abrogatedlaws bind. It is all the same whether we understand the words as speaking of a lawabrogated, so that it cannot command; or of its objects being dead so that it has none tobind. In either case the law has no force." Surely the subject is clear enough if wewant to understand it.
Viewed in the light of its many excellent precepts, the law was holy, just and good andeven spiritual; yet failing to accomplish man's salvation it was superceded by a bettersystem which does what it could not do.
* Rom. 14:5. One day above another. See page 297. * 1 Cor. 7:19. The commandments to bekept. Paul says we must keep "the commandments of God," that is the tencommandments.
ANSWER: See how they always assume just what they ought to prove, viz., that this isthe decalogue. Now let Paul in the same letter explain what he means by the commandants ofGod. "The things that I write unto you are the commandmants of the Lord." 1 Cor.14:37. So this has no reference to the decalogue.
* 2 Cor. 3. The ministration of death done away. See Chapter XIX., page 356. *Galatians 3:19. The added law. "The law was added because of transgression."This was the ceremonial law added to the moral law. Hence the law done away in Galatiansis only the ceremonial law.
ANSWER: This is what one party of the Seventh-Day Adventists says, while another partysays that it is all the moral law and not done away at all! So they warmly contradict eachother. But, 1. There is nothing said about any such distinction as moral and ceremoniallaws in all the book. 2. We have proved that there is no such distinction in all theBible. 3. All through Galatians it is "the" law without an intimation that therewas another law from which it was to be distinguished. The law was the whole law. EvenElder Butler admits this. Hear him: "The term 'the law' among the Jews generallyincluded the five books of Moses, thus including the whole system, moral, ritual, typicaland civil. This as a system these Judaizing teachers desired to maintain." Again:"There are no doubt, several references to the moral law in the epistle." Law inGalatians, pages 70,15. Good: that ends the matter; Galatians treats of the whole law. 4.That the moral law, as they call it, is included in "the law" is easily proved.Gal. 3:10, includes "all things which are written in the book of the law." Thatbook contained the ten commandments. Butler admits this. "The book of the law * * *contained both the moral and ceremonial laws." Law in Galatians, page 39. Again:"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. 3:13. This is themoral law, for there was no curse to the ceremonial law. This point is hard for them tomeet. Butler makes this confession: "We are perfectly willing to admit that the cursebrought to view in the text, from which Christ redeems his people, principally includestransgressions of the moral law." Law in Galatians, page 40. This gives up the wholecase. In Gal. 5:14, Paul quotes as "the law," "Thou shalt love thyneighbor." If any law is moral this is. 5. Now read carefully Gal. 3:15-19, and seethat the law was added to the promise made to Abraham. "Was added to thepromise," Wesley's Notes. So all their talk about this being the ceremonial law addedto the moral law is a fallacy. It is the whole law and it all ended at Christ. Gal.3:19-24.
* Eph. 2:14, 15. The law of ordinances. This shows that only the ceremonial law wasabolished.
ANSWER: As the ceremonial precepts of the law were the greater part of it, and as itwas largely on their account that the law was abolished as a burdensome system, they arenaturally mentioned as the reason why it was abolished. In giving the cause for a man'sdeath we naturally mention the diseased parts, though the whole man died. We say thatBrown died of heart disease. Then Smith reports that all that is dead of Brown is hisheart! That is a fair illustration of the Adventists argument on several texts. Theapostles say that the law is dead, died of types, shadows and carnal ordinances. Then theAdventists report that only a part of the law is dead, just the most diseased parts andthese have been amputated! Selah! Adventists say that there are no "ordinances"in the ten commandments, hence this can not apply to them. But this is a mistake. What isan ordinance? Webster says: 1. "An ordaining or establishing by authority;appointment. 2. A rule established by authority; a statute, law, edict, decree." Thisis exactly what the decalogue was, a law established by authority. Cruden's Concordancesays: "Ordinance. 1. "Any decree, statute or law, made by civil governors. 2.The laws, statutes, and commandments of God." So then the statutes, laws andcommandments of God are ordinances; specially was this true of the Sabbath to be kept onthe seventh day. This depended wholly and only upon God's appointment; hence it was surelyan ordinance, and so passed away with those ordinances.
* Col. 2:14-16. Nailed to the cross. See Chapter XV. The Law in the Book of Hebrews. Itis claimed by Adventists that the law which is here so distinctly said to have been"changed," "disannulled," etc., is only the ceremonial law.
ANSWER: 1. Not a word is said about a ceremonial law or that it is a particular one oftwo laws that is meant. It is simply "the" law without any qualification. Ifthis two law doctrine was as clear to the apostles and as important as it is withAdventists, it is strange that they should not somewhere, at least once, say so plainly.But they don't. They just say "the" law and go right on. 2. The decalogue isdistinctly referred to several times in this book, as in Chap. 8:9, "thecovenant," (See Deut. 4:13) "the tables of the covenant," Chap. 9:4, andthe giving of the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. Chap. 12:18-21. Hence the book doesrefer to the whole law.
* James 2:8-12. Every point of the law binding. James quotes two precepts from the tenand says we must keep the whole law of which the Sabbath is a part.
ANSWER: 1. Again we remind the reader that "the law" is all the law given tothe Jews, of which the decalogue is only a part. So if "the law" is binding now,then we must keep it all, sacrifices, feast days, etc. 2. If all the decalogue is bindingbecause James quotes a part of it, then all the law of Moses is binding too, because healso quotes from that, verse 8, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor." This is fromLev. 19:18. Is that whole chapter binding now? 3. James quoted so much as was applicableto his subject, either from the decalogue or from the other books, without thereby bindingeither upon us. 4. "The law of liberty," verse 12, is the law of the NewTestament. Wesley says: "Law of liberty - the gospel." Notes on verse 12. AdamClarke says: "The law of liberty, the gospel of Jesus Christ." On verse 12.Every quotation in this text is taken from the words of Christ in the gospels. See Matt.19:18, 19.
* 1 John 2:3-6. This is the ten commandments. So Adventists always apply it, and thenmake all liars who do not keep the seventh day.
ANSWER: 1. Does it say that these are the ten commandments? This, as usual, is assumed.2. The context plainly shows that the commandments of Christ are meant. Read verses 1 to 5and notice that it is Christ who is spoken of. Hence "his commandments" areChrist's commandments. There is no reference to the decalogue.
* 1 John 3:4. Sin is the transgression of the law. From this text Seventh-DayAdventists claim that all sins of every kind are a violation of the ten commandments whichis the law here meant.
ANSWER: 1. Does it say that this law is the ten commandments? No, nor any hint of sucha thing. Here, as ever, they assume the very thing to be proved. 2. The decalogue was notgiven till Moses, 2500 years after the creation. Ex. 2O; Deut. 5:2-6. But sin existed allthat time. The angels sinned, 2 Pet. 2:4; Adam sinned, Rom. 5:12; the Sodomites sinned,Gen. 13:13; "the Gentiles which have not the law," Rom. 2:12-14, sinned; hencesin is something more than a violation of the decalogue. A neglect to do good is sin,James 4:17, but that would not violate the decalogue. Unbelief is sin, Rom. 14:23, butthat is no transgression of the decalogue. So, many are damned because they neglected tofeed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, orvisit the sick, Matt. 25:41-43, none of which are mentioned in the decalogue. John says,"All unrighteousness (unrightness, wrong) is sin." 1 John 5:17. There are scoresof wrongs which the decalogue does not notice at all. 3. The decalogue ended at the cross,2 Cor. 3:7; Rom. 10:4, so it can not condemn sin now. 4. In the original of 1 John 3:4,the word law does not occur at all. Thus: "Sin is lawlessness," Revised Version."Sin is iniquity," Diaglott. "All sin is iniquity," Syriac. "Sinis wickedness," Sawyer's Translation. "Sin is the lawlessness," literalGreek. This is the correct idea. So a correct translation entirely spoils this text forAdventists. It simply affirms that all sin is iniquity, wickedness or lawlessness, adisregard of law, without any necessary reference to the decalogue.
* 1 John 3:22. The ten commandments again.
The same old assumption again, viz., that "the commandments" are always theten commandments. But the next verse explodes this hobby by naming what is meant."And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son JesusChrist, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." This is not the decalogueat all.
* Rev. 12:17. The remnant keep the commandments. This text shows that the remnant, thelast state of the church, will keep the ten commandments, hence the Sabbath.
ANSWER: 1. This occurs under the dragon, which Seventh-Day Adventists say is PaganRome. But Pagan Rome passed away more than 1,300 years ago, as they admit. So this,applies ages ago, not to the present. 2. Does it say that "the commandments" arethe ten commandments? No, nor is there anything to intimate it. They assume this as usual.3. Time and again, all through the, New Testament, other things are called "thecommandments." Thus the two great commandments," Matt. 22:36-40, the precepts ofChrist: John 14:15, 21; 15:10; 13:34; Acts 11:2; the Teachings of the apostles, 1 Cor.14:37; 1 Thess. 4:2; 2 Pet. 3:2, etc. It is far more probable that these are referred toinstead of the old law which was abolished.
* Rev. 14:12. See notes on Chap. 12:17, above. * Rev. 22:14. Do his commandments.
1. If the common version is correct, the remarks on Rev. 12:17, will apply here thesame. 2. But in the correct reading there is nothing said about the commandments. Therevised version gives it thus: "Blessed are they that wash their robes." So the,American Bible Union, the Diaglott, etc. Hence this text has no bearing on the subject.
Thus we have examined every text from Genesis to Revelations on which Sabbatarians relyfor the perpetuity of the law and the Sabbath. 1. To say the very least, all these textsare capable of a different interpretation from what they give them; they do notnecessarily mean what Adventists say. 2. I feel confident that we have fairly andconclusively proved that they do not teach what Adventists claim.
For myself, I feel profoundly impressed that the Sabbatarian theory is built all theway through upon a narrow, forced, and unnatural interpretation of the Bible, one thatcannot stand the test of fair criticism. The more I study it the more apparent these factsbecome to me. I am devoutly thankful to God that he has led me out of that error.
On this subject I shall make only a brief argument, simply calling attention to some ofthe main points.
That man's spirit survives the death of his body, and lives in a conscious state, hasbeen so generally believed by all people in all ages that we may fairly call it universal.In this, the most barbarous and the most enlightened nations have agreed. Nor has theincreasing intelligence of the advancing generations lessened this belief, but rather hasconfirmed it. The most profound thinkers of the race have held this faith. Though thisfact is not decisive, yet it does have much weight.
So this doctrine has been the universal faith of the Christian church in all ages. Theexceptions to this have been few and always regarded as heretical. This fact is justlyentitled to great weight. It should not be lightly regarded.
The Jews who had for so many ages enjoyed the benefits of God's revelations, alsobelieve that the spirit lived after the death of the body.
The Apocrypha gives the views of the Jews just before the time of Christ. Here are afew verses: The wicked shall "endure eternal torture by fire." 4 Maccab. 9:9."The divine vengeance is reserving you for eternal fire and torments, which shallcling to you for all time." Chap. 12:12. "Let us not fear him who thinketh hekilleth; for great is the trial of soul and danger of eternal torment laid up for thosewho transgress." Chap 13:14. Of the martyrs it is said: "Through which also theynow stand beside the divine throne, and live a blessed life." Chap. 17:18. "Thechildren of Abraham, with their victorious mother, are assembled together to the choir oftheir fathers, having received pure and immortal souls from God." Chap. 18:23."The tyrant Antiochus was both punished upon earth and is punished now he isdead." Verse 5.
These plainly show that the Jews believed in the immortality of the soul, the consciousstate of the dead, and eternal punishment.
So the Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived when Paul did, plainly states that thebody of the Jews believed in the immortality of souls. Of the Pharisees he says:"They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them." Antiquities, Book18, Chapter 1. Again: "They say that souls are incorruptible: but that the souls ofgood men only are removed into other bodies: but that the souls of bad men are subject toeternal punishment." Wars, Book 2, Chapter 8. Of another Jewish sect, the Essenes, hesays: "They teach the immortality of souls." Antiq., Book 18, Chap. 1. Further:"Their doctrine is that bodies are corruptible and that the matter they are made ofis not permanent; but that the souls are immortal and continue forever; and that they comeout of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which theyare drawn by a certain natural enticement. But that when they are set free from the bondsof the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upwards."Wars, Book 2, Chap. 8. Of the Sadducees he says: "But the doctrine of the Sadduceesis that souls die with the bodies." Antiq., Book 18, Chap. 1. Again: "They alsotake away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul and the punishments and rewardsin Hades." Wars, Book 2, Chap. 8.
Josephus says much more in the same line, so that there can be no doubt as to thebelief of the Jews at that time, for he was one of them and knew well their doctrines. Hesays that they believed in the immortality of the soul, the conscious state of the dead,and eternal punishment. The efforts of annihilationists to deny this are uncandid andfutile.
The Faith of the Early Church
The early Christian church held to the same doctrine. The martyrs are represented atdeath as going immediately to heaven. "They hastened to Christ," says Eusebius,Eccl. Hist. Book 5, Chap. 1. He says that another at death "received the crown ofimmortality." Same chapter. Again: "With peace they departed to God." Book5, Chap. 2. Of one who died at the same time with another he says that it was "toattach himself to the former as his companion on the way to heaven." Book of Martyrs,Chap. 11. Of the martyrs who had died he says: "Being transferred to the heavensthemselves and to the paradise of celestial pleasures." Book 10, Chap. 1.
Writing of the latter part of the second century, Eusebius says: "But about thattime, also, other men sprung up in Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. Theseasserted that the human soul, as long as the present state of the world existed, perishedat death and died with the body, but that it would be raised again with the body at thetime of resurrection." Book 6, Chap. 37. It will be seen that these heretics held thesame doctrine as the Adventists. They were set down in those early days as "thepropagators of false opinions," the same as now.
Only a Sickly Plant
Occasionally, here and there, along in the history of the church, men have arisenadvocating the sleep of the soul and the annihilation of the wicked. But the doctrine hasnot met with favor, has been received by but few, has had a sickly existence, and has soondisappeared.
My long acquaintance with it convinced me that it does not bear the fruits whichAdventists claim for it. They say that a belief in this doctrine will save men frominfidelity, Spiritualism, Universalism, etc. I found it far otherwise. A larger proportionhave gone into infidelity, Spiritualism, and Universalism from Seventh-day Adventists thanfrom any other church with which I am acquainted. The number has been fearfully large andis increasing. Where they have converted one infidel, they have made several. I oftennoticed that infidels and opposers of the church were greatly pleased with our attack uponthe orthodox faith and that they would go away strengthened in their unbelief and hatredof the church. This created doubts in my mind as to the utility of teaching that doctrine.I noticed also that such men as Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Moody and otherswho have uncompromisingly preached eternal punishment, have been most successful inwinning souls and converting skeptics to God.
I also saw that this doctrine in the hands of the Adventists led to strife, contention,discussion, and argument, to the loss of piety and devotion. It naturally catches men ofthat turn of mind, instead of the humble and devout. Hence, on the whole, I saw no good init.
The Adventists assert that the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead leads intoSpiritualism. But, as stated above, facts refute this, as more in proportion to theirnumbers go into this error from the Adventists than from the evangelical churches. Thesechurches strongly hold other doctrines which utterly forbid their embracing Spiritualism.Further, the Bible forbids seeking to the dead and states plainly that they know nothingof things on the earth. See Deut. 18:9-12; Job 14:21; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Luke 16:19-31. Hence,after forty years' effort, Spiritualism has made no more impression upon the church thanother errors have, nor is there any prospect that it will be in the future.
The Chief Strength Of The Doctrine
That which weighs the most with believers in the sleep of the dead and annihilation isthe rational argument. Many texts of scripture are decidedly against them and they feelit; but these must be explained away because the orthodox doctrine is not reasonable. Sofar as we can see, nothing remains alive of the man that dies. Hence Adventists assertthat death ends all. But this does not necessarily follow. The most powerful agencies inthe universe are invisible. God himself is "invisible." 1 Tim. 1:17. Adventistsbelieve that angels and devils are constantly around us; yet we never see them. Airenvelops us on every side; yet we never can see it. Even water converted into steambecomes invisible. Take heat, electricity, and gravitation, the most powerful agents withwhich we are acquainted, and they are invisible. Who has ever seen gravitation? We see itpull the apple from the tree, the giant oak with a crash to the ground, and hold the vastearth in its place around the sun; but the thing itself we never see. What is light? Nonecan tell.
After the study of ages, the profoundest scientists are unable to tell what life iseven in its lowest form, in the simplest plant. We know it exists: we see its effects: andwe see when it departs; but what it is, whence it came, and whither it has gone none cantell. Before these unsolved problems the greatest minds stand dumb and reverentlyacknowledge the unsearchable wisdom of God.
But of all the profound mysteries of creation, the greatest is that of the human soul,the thinking part of man. What is thought! It can not be seen, nor heard, neither weighednor measured. We can not say, it is so high, or so wide, or so long, or round, or square.How then can we affirm that the mind or the spirit can not exist separate from the fleshand bones simply because we can not see it go away! Such reasoning is only superficialguess-work. As we have seen, it would deny the existence of God, angels, devils and thegreatest forces in nature, as heat, electricity, gravitation, the principle of life, etc.God only can tell us about the soul and its nature. Hence this is a question which canonly be settled by the Bible. So the great argument for annihilation is that it isunreasonable that God should allow sin and sinners always to exist as a blot on hiscreation. But the same argument would prove that an Almighty God of purity and love wouldnever have suffered sin to enter his fair creation; or having entered, that he wouldimmediately annihilate it. But stubborn facts refute this reasoning. Sin and sinners arehere. They have been here ever since the world began, age after age. God did not blot outsin nor sinners as soon as they appeared, nor has he manifested special haste to bringthem to an end. Millions of sinners he suffers to live on, not only to no purpose so faras their own salvation is concerned, nor as a warning to others; but, as far as we cansee, their example hardens others in sin and introduces millions more into the world asvile as themselves. Even the fallen angels, who are not on probation, whose lives canbring no good to themselves, but who live only to lead others away from God, these he haspermitted to live on for thousands of years.
Who can affirm that what God has thus permitted for thousands of years, ever sincecreation began, so far as we know, he can not permit for ages to come, and always? We cansay that it would not be according to our ideas of wisdom and right. Well, has the pastbeen according to our ideas? Is the present as we would have it? No; then this explodesthat argument. Till we have infinite wisdom we had best be careful how we sit in judgmenton God's ways. Could we bring together and see in one place all the sinning, all the pain,suffering, woe and anguish, tears and misery in our earth to-day, it would be as horribleas hell itself. Yet God sees it all and permits it to go right on. Did we not know it tobe a fact, we would pronounce it to be irreconcilable with the attributes of God. Wesimply and devoutly accept what we can not explain. Eternal punishment presents no harderproblem, and hence may be true, all our finite reasonings to the contrary notwithstanding.
Adventists delight to picture hell with all the horrors of literal fire, roasting,torture, etc., and then represent that this is just what orthodox churches believe. But noone believes or teaches such things. Material things of earth are used to representspiritual things of the other world. Hence, it is fire in one place, outer darkness inanother, worms in another, banishment in another, to be cut in two or asunder in another,etc. We do not claim to know exactly what it will be, only that it will be a fearful stateof eternal punishment.
Scripture Statements
The Bible teaches that there is an intelligent spirit in man, which exists in aconscious state after the death of the body. What is a spirit? Jesus said, "God is aspirit." John 4:24; and, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Luke 24:39.Here, then, is one intelligent, conscious, immortal spirit which has neither flesh norbones. Paul says that he is "the Father of spirits," Heb. 12:9, in contrast withthe "fathers of our flesh." If he is the Father of spirits, then, necessarily,these must partake of his nature. Hence Jesus says: "That which is born of the fleshis flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:6. Notice themarked contrast between flesh and spirit. They are of different natures. Isaiah says:"The Egyptians are men, not God; and their horses flesh and not spirit." As Godis superior to man, so spirit is superior to flesh. God is the Father of our spirits butcertainly not of our flesh. Hence Paul says: "We are the offspring of God." Acts17:29. Our spirits, then, are from a different source, and of a higher nature than ourbodies. So the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is an intelligent, immortalspirit, without flesh or bones. He appeared at the baptism of Jesus, Matt. 3:16, and atPentecost, Acts 2:2-4; he teaches and guides us, John 14:26; 16:10. Here, then, is anotherimmortal spirit.
The angels are conscious, intelligent persons, yet they are spirits. "Who makethhis angels spirits." Heb. 1:7. So the devils are spirits; yet they are intelligentpersons and do not die. See Mark 5:1-13. Here a man with an unclean spirit met Jesus andknew him. He talked with Jesus and said there were many of them in the man. Jesus sentthem out of the man into the swine. This shows that they can exist in a body or out of abody and still be alive and intelligent in both cases. This shows that spirits areintelligent persons, not merely air, or breath, or an influence, as Adventists try toprove. So in 1 Kings 22:21, 22, "There came forth a spirit and stood before the Lordand said, I will persuade him," Ahab. The Lord told him to go.
We have seen from Josephus that the Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul;and that the spirit lived after the death of the body. On this question Paul declared hewas a Pharisee. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and theother Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the sonof a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And whenhe had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and themultitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel,nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." Acts 23:6-8. The Pharisees believed inthe resurrection, in angels and in spirits, and so did Paul. Adventists believe the firsttwo and deny the third. Paul enumerates several things in heaven as "MountSion," "the heavenly Jerusalem," the "angels," "God thejudge "Jesus," and, finally, "the spirits of just men." Heb. 12:22-24.All these texts and many more like them, prove that a spirit is an intelligent being,without flesh or bones, living and acting the same as men in the body.
It is easy to show that man has a spirit like these. Thus: "There is a spirit inman." "The spirit within me constraineth me." Job 32:8, 18. "The Lordformeth the spirit of man within him." Zech. 12:1. It is spoken of as a distinctentity, distinguished from the body. This spirit is not dependent upon the body for life,but rather the body is dependent upon it. "The body without the spirit is dead."James 2:26. Everywhere the spirit is recognized as superior to the body. This spirit inman knows and thinks. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a manwhich is in him?" I Cor. 2:11. Then the spirit thinks, reasons, knows. Again:"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Matt. 26:41. So it is thespirit that wills. "My spirit made diligent search." Ps. 77:6. Then it is thethinking part of man. The spirit does not die with the body. Not once in all the Bible isit said or intimated that the spirit ever dies, while it is distinctly stated that it doesnot go down to dust with the body. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as itwas; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl. 12:7. This is plainenough. Again: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit ofthe beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Eccl. 3:21. Man's spirit, then, goes upto God. The body can be destroyed without destroying the spirit. "For the destructionof the flesh, that the spirit may be saved." 1 Cor. 5:5. David says: "It is sooncut off and we fly away." Ps. 9:10. Yes, we fly away.
The case of the thief on the cross can never be fairly harmonized with the sleep of thesoul at death. "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thykingdom. And Jesus said unto him, 'Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me inparadise."' Luke 23:42, 43. All sorts of efforts are made to get around the plainmeaning of this text. But they are futile. Jesus plainly said, "To-day shalt thou bewith me in paradise." If he went to paradise that day, then all Christians go thereat death. His body did not go to paradise, for it was buried. Hence his spirit did liveand go there. Immediately after this Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I commend myspirit," verse 46. His spirit went with the thief to paradise that day. So the dyingStephen said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59. This doctrine of thesurvival of the spirit is all through the Bible.
The Bible represents the body as the tabernacle or temple in which the man lives. Jesussaid, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "Hespake of the temple of his body." John 2:19, 21. So Peter said, "As long as I amin this tabernacle." "I must put off this my tabernacle." 2 Pet. 1:13, 14.Paul teaches the same doctrine. "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man isrenewed day by day." 2 Cor. 4:16. There is, then, an inward man and an outward man.The inward man is the substantial man, the one that does not perish. Paul proceeds:"For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have abuilding of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this wegroan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so bethat being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle dogroan, being burdened: * * * Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst weare at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight): We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to bepresent with the Lord." 2 Cor. 5:1-8. See how clear is Paul's statement: "Ourearthly house," "tabernacle," "in the body," "absent fromthe body," etc. Adventists never talk that way. At home in the body, absent from theLord; but absent from the body, present with the Lord. It is only by doing violence to thescriptures that this text can be made to harmonize with the idea of the sleep of the soul.
Again hear Paul. "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in thebody, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth), such a onecaught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body, or out of thebody, I cannot tell: God knoweth), how that he was caught up into paradise, and heardunspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." 2 Cor. 12:2-4. ThenPaul believed a man could be out of his body and go to heaven and hear words there.Adventists scout such ideas.
The following text is so plain on the subject of the conscious state of the dead, thatAdventists have been greatly perplexed over it. They have tried various explanations, allcontradictory and none satisfactory to themselves. I have been there and know. Paul says:"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this isthe fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixttwo, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Neverthelessto abide in the flesh is more needful for you." Phil. 1:21-24. "To die isgain," "a desire to depart and be with Christ," "I live in theflesh," "abide in the flesh" - this was Paul's faith. He was in a straitbetwixt two, whether to remain in the flesh and preach Christ and aid his brethren ordepart and be with Christ. How utterly contrary to Adventist ideas this is.
See the same doctrine so definitely taught in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,Luke 16:19-31. "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by theangels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he liftedup his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Andhe cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dipthe tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' ButAbraham said, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedest thy good things, andlikewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou are tormented. And besideall this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would passfrom hence, to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.' Thenhe said, 'I pray thee therefore father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house:for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into thisplace of torment.' Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let themhear them.' And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham but if one went unto them from the dead,they will repent.'
1) This is Christ's own teaching. 2) As we have seen, it was what the Phariseesbelieved with regard to the dead. 3) Jesus accepts and confirms their doctrine. 4) Theseevents occurred between death and the resurrection, while the brethren of the rich manwere yet alive on earth. 5) Hence immediately after death and before the resurrection therich man is in hell and Lazarus is rewarded. 6) They are both conscious. 7) Abraham isalive over there. 8) Both think and talk. Hence the dead certainly know something. Had weno other text, this alone would disprove the sleep of the dead. Again Jesus said God is"the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the Godof the dead, but of the living." Matt. 22:32. Then those patriarchs are alive and notblotted out of existence at death. Once more: "Fear not them which kill the body, butare not able to kill the soul." Matt. 10:28. If the body is all there is of the man,if the soul is simply the life of the body, then men can kill the soul. But Jesus saysthey can not kill the soul. It does not, then, die with the body. How squarely these plaintexts contradict the Adventist faith; yet they claim to go by the Bible. So we find Moseson the mount with Jesus, though he had died and was buried fifteen hundred years before.Deut. 32. "Behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him."Matt. 17:3. But why quote more? These are decisive.
Many of the texts quoted to prove the sleep of the soul refer only to the body. ThusGen. 3:19, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This can not referto the spirit which has neither flesh nor bones, Luke 24:39, but returns to God at death,Eccl. 12:7. Read their proof texts. "David slept with his fathers, and was buried inthe city of David." 1 Kings 2:10. Was David's spirit buried? "So man lieth down,and riseth not. * * * Oh, that thou wouldst hide me in the grave." Job 14:12, 13. DidJob's spirit lie down in the grave? Was it hid in the dust? Hardly. "If I wait, thegrave is mine house." Job 17:13. Does the spirit go into the grave? "There is nowork, no device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest." Eccl.9:10. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth." Dan.. 12:2."Lazarus sleepeth," "Lazarus is dead." "By this time hestinketh." John 11:11, 14, 39. Could this be said of the spirit? Did the spirit ofLazarus decay? Surely not. Take their favorite text, Acts 2:34. "David is notascended into the heavens." The context shows plainly that this is said of the body.'"He is both dead and buried and his sepulcher is with us." "He spake of theresurrection of Christ." Verses 29, 31. So in 1 Cor. 15, the several expressionsabout being asleep are all explained by the subject discussed - the resurrection of thebody. 1 Thess. 4:13-16, is explained the same way. Paul is referring to the resurrection.That whole class of texts refers only to the bodies which go into the grave at death. Asthe spirit does not go there, these texts have no reference to it, and hence prove nothingconcerning it. One simple text explains them all: "The graves were opened and manybodies of the saints which slept arose." Matt. 27:52. Yes, graves, bodies, slept -that is the whole of it. Adventists might go to our orthodox hymn books and selectexpressions about our friends being asleep and in their graves and thus prove that we allbelieve in the sleep of the soul. But it would be false, as we know it refers only to thebody.
So their main text, Eccl. 9:5-10, "The dead know not any thing," is limitedby the context to "any thing that is done under the sun," verse 6. Compare thiswith other texts where the same expression is used. "With Absolom went two hundredmen * * * They went in their simplicity, and they knew not anything." 2 Sam. 15:11.Another: "But the lad they knew not anything; only Jonathan and David knew thematter." 1 Sam. 20:39. Of a self-conceited teacher Paul says, "He is proud,knowing nothing." 1 Tim. 6:4. Were all these absolutely without thought orconsciousness? No. It simply means that they knew nothing about the things mentioned. Soof Eccl. 9:5. The context explains it. "Neither have they any more a portion foreverin any thing that is done under the sun." Verse 6.
Psalms 146:3, 4, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whomthere is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day histhoughts perish." His thoughts, his purposes. The margin of the Revised Version reads"purposes." The Greek word for thoughts is DIALOGISMOI. Greenfield defines it"reasoning, ratiocination, thought, cogitation, purpose." If we rely uponearthly princes, when they die their purposes perish and we are left helpless. So thistext is easily explained as are also the few remaining ones which are used to teach thesleep of the dead.
BATTLE CREEK, MICH., furnishes a good illustration of the failure of Adventism after afair trial. Beginning in 1855, it was the headquarters of the denomination for about ahalf century. It was the home of Elder White and wife. For all those years it had thebenefit of the labours of all their strongest men, and the influence of their greatgeneral conferences. Here were built, at immense cost, their great institutions, as theirlarge publishing houses, their college, their great sanitarium of world renown, theirlarge tabernacle, etc. When I withdrew in 1887, there were nearly two thousand Sabbathkeepers here, all united. Often I preached in that great tabernacle when every seat, belowand in the gallery, was full. In the college I taught one class of about two hundred, allyoung men and women preparing to work either as ministers or Bible readers. Now, 1914, thecollege is closed and lost to the cause; the sanitarium has revolted from thedenomination, and nearly all the management, doctors, nurses and helpers are Sundaykeepers; the publishing houses were burned and the remnant moved away; the church hasdwindled down to about four or five hundred; the tabernacle is largely empty and anelephant on their hands; three separate companies of Sabbath keepers now meet everySabbath, having no connection with each other. Worse still, large numbers havebackslidden, lost faith in everything, and attend nowhere. It has been like a desolatingcyclone.
About twenty years ago among the strongest men in the ranks, men of whom the wholedenomination was proud, were Dr. J. H. Kellogg, head of the sanitarium; Elder A.T. Jones,editor, author, minister, orator; Elder E.J. Waggoner, editor, author, preacher; ElderGeo. Tenney editor, minister, missionary; Elder L. McCoy, minister, chaplain ofsanitarium; with many persons in important positions as business managers, collegeprofessors, doctors, etc. All these are now out of the church, and all their influence isagainst the body.
What has happened here is constantly happening all over the field in their oldchurches. It is in new fields and foreign lands where their history is unknown, that theirchief gains are made. I can name large numbers of churches all over the land, which werelarge, strong churches thirty and forty years ago. Now they are either extinct or only alittle handful meeting in the corner of an old church. Such are Norridgewock, Maine,Danvers, Mass., Memphis, Wright, and Monteray, Mich.; Knoxville, Sigourney, Winterset andOsceola, Iowa, with scores of smaller churches in many of the states. The thing does notwear. If the past is any guide, twenty years hence many of their strong men now will leaveand oppose them, and many of their best churches will go down. In 1912, the lateststatistics available, with 4,000 workers in the field, with millions of money spent, theyonly gained 4,000 in membership in all the world, or only one for every labourer! TheReview and Herald, April 23, 1914, says: "Take 1912 as a basis, and we find that itcost this denomination practically from $900 to $1,000 for every person added to thechurch membership."
How does this compare with the claims that theirs is the most wonderful message theworld ever had and that the power of God is with them as with no other people? Cold factsare against them.
Appendix B
The system of Seventh-Day Adventism rests for its foundation on the unsupportedtheories of an uneducated old farmer in his last days and the reveries of a totallyuneducated, unread, sickly, excitable girl. Wm. Miller, the founder of Adventism, wassixty-one years old in 1843, the year he set for the end of the world. He died six yearslater, disappointed and confused. He had only a limited country schooling. He rejected allBiblical helps and depended solely upon his own ideas of the Bible. See "Life ofMiller," by James White, pages 46, 48, 59. He accepted as infallibly correct thedates then found in the margin of the Bible. These were arranged by Usher according to thebest information then obtainable. Later investigations have shown these dates to beincorrect by many years. Miller based all his figures on these old dates and fixed bythese to a year, the beginning and ending of every prophetic period in the Bible! By thishe set 1843 for the end of the world and all other periods to fit that date, such as theseventy weeks, the 2,300 days, the 1,335 days, the 1,290 days, the 1,260 days, the sevenchurches, seven seals, trumpets, etc. He said all were absolutely correct!
Then came the present Mrs. White, a mere girl, wholly unacquainted with history orchronology, and set her seal to all Miller's figures and dates, said not one must bealtered. Hear her: "I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of theLord and that it should not be altered, that the figures were as he wanted them.""Early Writings," page 64, edition of 1882. By these dates the wholedenomination must always abide, right or wrong! So their whole prophetic system rests uponthe figures of an old farmer and an ignorant girl made seventy years ago! God pity them.
Appendix C
The fanatical expectations of Adventists. For about seventy years Seventh-DayAdventists have predicted that a few months, or years, before the end, the Holy Ghostwould be poured out upon them like Pentecost. They call it "the latter rain."Then will occur the "Loud Cry" to close up the work. Now, 1914, they preach andpublish that all this has begun and the work is to close up quickly! Of this work Mrs.White says: "Miracles are wrought, the sick are heated, and signs and wonders followthe believers." "Great Controversy," page 430, edition of 1884. She devotesfive chapters predicting the wonders to occur just before the end. Read them. I can onlysketch a few items. Satan will appear personally and visibly to all, in dazzling glory,claiming that he is Christ come to earth. All the world but Adventists accept him as such.He smiles on them and blesses them. All shout "Christ has come." Then Satantells them that Adventists are wicked blasphemers for working on Sunday and must all bekilled. Pages 442, 443. Read it.
Spiritualism has taken possession of all the churches, pages 405, 422; church and statehave united, pages 423, 424, not only in the United States, but "throughout allChristendom," page 444; Satan then moves all legislative bodies to issue an edictthat all Sabbath keepers shall be killed and exterminated unless they recant by a certainday. "No man may buy or sell" who does not keep Sunday, page 422; whoeverrefuses "shall be put to death." Sabbath keepers "will be thrust intoprison, some will be exiled, some will be treated as slaves." Page 426. "Theyare threatened with destruction." Page 427. Adventists will then flee from the citiesand villages and associate together in companies, dwelling in the most desolate andsolitary places." Page 445. "Many of all nations will be cast into unjust andcruel bondage and sentenced to be slain." Page 445. "In every quarter companiesof armed men, urged on by hosts of evil angels, are preparing for the work of death, withshouts of triumph, with jeers and imprecations, they are about to rush upon theirprey." Page 452.
Just then Christ appears and 144,000 Seventh-Day Adventists are caught up in the cloudsand saved. All the rest of mankind, worldlings, Methodists, Baptists, and all Sundaykeepers, are utterly destroyed! This is what Adventists believe and teach. Read the abovequoted book. Of all the wild, fanatical theories ever preached this is the climax. Tobring this about the wheels of progress, would have to be turned back a thousand years. Itwould be the most miraculous revolution the world ever saw, and all within a few shortyears! It is to be world-wide" all nations." Page 445. India, China, Japan,where they care nothing for Sunday, will decree that all must die who work that day! Thetrend of the whole world is exactly the other way, separation of church and state, greaterliberty of thought, greater toleration of all religious beliefs, and greater laxity ofSunday observance; a man is blind who cannot see this.
Appendix D
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE, not Sunday, is the 'MARK" of the papacy. The onesupreme claim of the papacy, the one all essential TEST of the loyalty of every Catholic,the one thing which every Catholic must swear to when he joins that church, the one thingabove all others insisted upon in all catechisms and doctrinal books, is the SUPREMACY OFTHE POPE OF ROME. No one can be a Catholic and deny this claim. Subscribe to this, and allelse follows. During the papal supremacy tens of thousands were martyred because theywould not bow to the authority of the pope. It was this that brought on the greatReformation under Luther and originated the name PROTESTANT. It is what all Protestantchurches have been warning against for three hundred years. The TEST, the MARK, of loyaltyof a Mohammedan is to acknowledge the supreme authority of Mohammed as a prophet; of aMormon, to acknowledge J. Smith as God's prophet; of a Christian Scientist, to acknowledgethe authority of Mrs. Eddy; of a Catholic, to acknowledge the authority of the pope ofRome as supreme. In this city we have several Catholic churches and scores of otherchurches which keep Sunday. Does anybody think of these churches as Catholic because theykeep Sunday? No. Do Catholics think of them as Catholics on this account? No. Do thesechurches themselves ever think of themselves as Catholics because they keep Sunday? No. Isit then a MARK of a Catholic to keep Sunday? No, because no one, either Catholic,Protestant, worlding, or any one else, ever thinks of it as the mark of a Catholic. Henceas nobody in the church or out ever regards a person as a Catholic because he keepsSunday, that cannot be the mark of a papist.
But the moment any person acknowledges the authority of the pope as supreme, every oneregards him as a Catholic, a papist. And the Catholic church so regards him. But if hesimply keeps Sunday and denies the authority of the pope, will the Catholic church accepthim? Emphatically no. Then what is the TEST, the MARK, of a papist? It is to acknowledgethe supremacy of the pope of Rome. That MARKS him as a Catholic.
Thus "Johnson's New Universal Encyclopedia" says: "Roman CatholicChurch, that body of Christians which acknowledges the authority of the pope ofRome." The same article gives the creed to which every Catholic must swear obediencethus: "I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor of St.Peter, Prince of the apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ."
Here you have the MARK of that church. It is not keeping Sunday, but the supremeauthority of the Pope. Every Catholic catechism or doctrinal work has in bold letters thisheadline: "MARKS OF THE CHURCH." Sunday keeping is never given as one of them,but the supremacy of the pope is always given. Mark well this fact.
Appendix E
The following statement I drew up, and read to a leading Catholic priest of GrandRapids, Mich., who readily signed it, as will be seen below:
"The Catholic doctrine of the change of the Sabbath is this: The apostles, byinstruction from Jesus Christ, changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to commemoratethe resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Holy Ghost, both of which occurred onSunday. The change was made by the apostles themselves, and hence by divine authority, atthe very beginning of the church. There are references to this change in Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:1, 2; Rev. 1:10, etc. Yet these texts do not state positively such a change; henceCatholics go to the statements of the early Christian Fathers, where this change by theapostles is confirmed and put beyond doubt. Catholics also rely upon the tradition of thechurch which says that the change was made by the apostles. Catholics never teach that thechange of the day was made by the church two or three hundred years after Christ. Such astatement would be contrary to all the facts of history and the traditions of the church.
"The Holy Catholic Church began with the apostles. St. Peter was the first pope.Hence, when they say that the church changed the Sabbath, they mean that it was done bythe church in the days of the apostles. Neither the church nor the pope, two or threehundred years after the apostles, had anything whatever to do with changing the Sabbath,for the change had been made ages before. Catholics do not call the first day of the weekthe Sabbath, for that was Saturday; but they call it Sunday, or the Lord's Day.
"The above statement by Rev. D. M. Canright is true and pure Catholic doctrine.Rev. James C. Pulcher, Pastor of St. James' Church, Grand Rapids, Mich."
In answer to my question Archbishop Ireland wrote me thus: "St. Paul, March 2,1914. "MY DEAR SIR: In answering your question I would state that the Jewish Sabbathwas simply a positive precept in the Mosaic law and lapsed with that law. The apostles andearly Christians instituted the Sunday as a day of special prayer in honor of the greatmysteries of the Christian religion: the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit,both occurring on the first day of the week. "Very sincerely, "JOHNIRELAND."
I have carefully examined the "Catholic Encyclopedia,", the "CatholicDictionary," a large number of Catholic catechisms, large and small, and all agree inlocating the change of the, Sabbath in the time of the apostles and by the apostles. Thisis emphatically the doctrine of the Catholic church. Not a single Catholic authority everlocates the change anywhere else. Adventists are unfair in omitting this fact when theyquote only a part of what Catholics say. The above Catholic authorities quote Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10, the same as Protestants do as evidence that the observance of theLord's Day originated with the apostles.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA