^ OCT 2 1 1940 B)rTlO .L6 1913 Logan, Maurice S., 1859 Sabbath theology (CR: Creatioa Resuttection) SABBATH THEOLOGY A Reply to Those who Insist that Saturday is the Only True Sabbath Day ^^H OF pm/v^ ^K by MAURICE S. LOGAN Author of "Musicology." . OCT 2 1 1940 LORD'S DAY ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES 203 BROADWAY NEW YORK CITY Copyright, 1913, By MAURICE S. LOGAN Entered at Stationer's Hall, London, England. PEEFACE The day of the Sabbath and the true interpretation of the Sabbath law are the main issues involved in *' Sabbath Theology.'^ Saturday Sabbath theology teaches that the Bible recognizes no Sabbath (in a weekly sense) but the seventh day of the week. It is one aim of this book to prove that the Sunday Sab- bath is the only Sabbath that has now any Bible authority in a day appointed sense. Seventh Day Adventists are undoubtedly the ablest and most aggressive champions of the Satur- day Sabbath theology. Hence, for the sake of di- rectness and the added interest which direct con- troversy lends, and the need in vindicating truth to meet and refute false conceptions of truth, the dis- cussion of ^'Sabbath Theology" is here presented largely in the form of a reply to Seventh Day Ad- ventists. The author still aims, however, to justify the title ^* Sabbath Theology.'' The Seventh Dav Adventists' Sabbath doctrine has its roots in the Old Testament. Hence refuting the doctrine from the New Testament standpoint alone is like cutting off the branches of a tree with- IV PEEFACE out digging it up by the roots. So long as the roots remain the tree will grow. The only hope, therefore, of any effective result is in digging out the very roots of the doctrine, and only a thorough work is worth while. The main roots of the doctrine are: 1st, that the creation days were twenty-four hour days; 2nd, that the primitive Sabbath was the sev- enth day of the week; 3rd that the withholding of the manna proved the original day of the Sabbath; 4th, that the day of the Sabbath was fixed by the Sabbath law. If these theories can be disproved con- clusively, it follows that the Sabbath doctrine grow- ing out of them will be destroyed both root and branch, and only in this way is it possible to meet the Seventh Day Adventists on their own ground. Moreover, since these theories are held (not only by Adventists), they are necessarily involved in a complete discussion of Sabbath theology. The doctrine that God's Sabbath law was abol- ished, involves a practical admission of these roots of the Saturday Sabbath doctrine, and since it does not touch the roots of the evil, it cannot destroy the tree. The all too evident purpose of the doctrine is to get rid of the Jewish Sabbath at any cost. It cannot be denied that in thus destroying the Bible authority of the Sabbath this doctrine is directly responsible in a very large measure for the Con- tinental Sunday. No matter how old the doctrine may be, or how many eminent and good men have supported it, the principle remains true that, ^^by their fruits ye shall know them." It ranks there- fore as equally dangerous with the doctrine it was meant to destroy. PREFACE V The sacreclness of the Sabbath is the only sure / foundation on which to buikl in Sabbath reform, I and this must rest on God's command ^'Remember / the Sabbath day to keep it holy," which has never yet been repealed any more than have the nine other precepts of the Decalogue which are still recognized as binding. *^But comparatively little will be accomplished until we have a clear, well grounded Sabbath doc- trine. "—(Waffle) . That Seventh Day Adventists are the most for- midable opponents of Sabbath legislation is a fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated. Not only do they divide the Christian strength that should be united against a common enemy, but combine with the avowed enemies of Christ to defeat Sabbath legislation; and by reason of their intense but mis- guided religious zeal (due to their Sunday mark of the beast doctrine) they easily become the recog- nized leaders of the enemies' forces. Their evident honesty and sincereity, their evident religious con- victions, their apparently plausible arguments, and their posing as the champions of religious liberty win the sympathy and support of many honest legislators. From a recent Adventist leaflet entitled '* Seventh Day Adventism" we quote the following — ^^In 57 nations their representatives are carrying the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death. Their gifts to the gospel amount to two and a half million annually. One out of every thirteen of their membership is de- finitely engaged in some form of gospel work. They maintain 686 educational institutions of all grades in yi PBEFACE which are enrolled over 21,000 students under 1,319 instructors. Their 28 publishing houses print the gospel in 71 different languages and the annual out- put of their literature is valued at nearly two mil- lion dollars. They have three and a half million dol- dars invested in medical missionary institutions in all parts of the world. 160 physicians and 2,000 trained nurses are connected with that department of their work. Over ten million dollars is invested in their educational and philanthropic institutions. In all these ways they are seeking to uplift and bless humanity. ' ' This gives some idea of the present strength of the S. D. Adventist organization. In so far as they do good through the essential doctrines of salvation which they hold in common with other Christian churches no fault can be found. But this outlay mainly represents antagonism to all other Christian churches and in so far as this is true we have a ^ blouse divided against itself'^ and to that extent it is not only wasted time and money, but a positive hindrance to the Gospel. Their Sabbath doctrine, and their doctrine that all other churches are Babylon and rejected of God, nec- essarily makes co-operation with other Christian churches impossible. Their one great distinctive present day mission, as they themselves affirm, is to proclaim the Third AngePs Message, and the vital point in their third angePs message is that Sunday is the mark of the beast. This then is the very heart and soul of their entire propaganda, and is thus the basis on which to judge the value of their work as a whole in its rela- tion to the gospel. PREFACE Vll Even setting the Sabbath question aside and judg- ing from the standpoint of the essential truths of the gospel which they teach, their remarkable growth is not a positive measure of gospel progress, for the greater part is but the measure of what they detract from the work of other Christian churches; not to mention the direct hindrance to the gospel due to the inevitable friction and confusion involved, which must be especially obstructive to the acceptance of the gospel in non-Christian countries. Hence the only justification for the Adventists' great outlay of time and money must depend on the truth of their doctrine regarding the Sabbath and regarding the churches as Babylon and rejected of God. Their 1863 report gives 22 ministers, 8 licentiates, and 3,500 members. Their 1912 report gives 863 ministers, 492 licentiates, 1,386 missionaries, 2,194 canvassers, and 114,206 members. What does this promise for the future when we consider the natural accelerating rate of increase due to numbers? And what does this in turn promise for Sabbath legisla- tion when they have already proved themselves the most formidable opponents of Sabbath legislation? Yet still it is the general policy of the Christian churches to ignore them. The time has surely come for the general awaken- ing of the churches to a realizing sense of the na- ture of the Adventists' campaign against the Sun- day Sabbath. The campaign consists of a thorough- ly organized and systematic propaganda to oppose Sabbath legislation, to encourage the violation of existing Sabbath laws, and to encourage in every Vm PEEFACE way possible the desecration of the Sunday Sabbath ; and is waged with all the zeal of fanaticism due to their Sunday mark of the beast doctrine. It would seem that the only practical way to counteract this campaign would be by a general counter educational campaign on Sabbath doctrine, with special reference to showing the true character of the Adventists' Sabbath doctrine in the light of the Bible. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. If all the churches that are interested in Sunday Sabbath reform took hold of this campaign with the commendable zeal that Adventists display, there could be no question as to the worth while results. The S. D. Adventist menace to Sunday Sabbath reform is mainly in the obstruction they present to Sabbath legislation — 1, in raising the question of the day of the Sabbath; 2, in raising the question of religious persecution ; 3, by effectively posing as the champions of religious liberty. The Sabbath is the great bulwark of religious lib- erty and the danger is not in the State recognizing 4he fact but in its ignoring the fact. A still greater menace to Sunday Sabbath reform is the growing tendency (even among church mem- bers) to make the Sunday Sabbath a holiday instead of a holy day. The doctrine that God's Sabbath law was abolished, furnishes a valid excuse, and is thus the entering wedge to the Continental Sunday. It is evident that each of these evils can be met only in a doctrinal campaign. To supply the text for such a doctrinal compaign is one purpose of this book. M. S. L. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS CHAPTER I. PAGE The Ceeation Days 19 The Twenty-four Hour Creation-day Theory the Foun- dation of the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath Doctrine — The Word "Day"— "The Evening and the Morning"— The Sunset to Sunset Method of Counting Time — Its Origin in Lev. 23 : 32, not in Gen. 1 : 5 — Evening and Morning Versus Night and Day — Reply to J. N. An- drews — Change of Condition and Duration the Two Elements Involved in the Creation Days — The Fact of Creation Wholly Dependent on the Former — Proof that Moses did not have the Duration of the Creation Days in Mind — Proof that Moses had in Mind the Change of Condition Involved in the Creation Days — The Second Account of Creation in Gen. 2 : A — Ps. 90 : 4, with the Creation Reference Preceding — Deut. 4 : 32 — Summary of Moses' Testimony — 2 Peter 3 : 8, with the Creation Reference Preceding — The Presumption Implied in Job 38 : 24,25— The Two-fold Time Sense of God's Rest Day — God's Rest as Lasting as the Finished Creation — The Twenty-four Hour Creation-day Theory as Contra- dicting Nature — True Science God's Word as Truly as the Bible— The Child Thought Argument. % CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER II. The Beginning of Time 56 Time — Two General Theories Regarding the Beginning of Time — Deut. 4 : 32 — The Distinction Between the Chronological Sense and the Birthday or Memorial Sense of Time — Beginning of the Bible Chronology — "The Beginning" in Gen. 1 : 1 — God's Rest Day as the Seventh in the Same Series With the Creation Days — The Sense in Which God's Seventh Day was Man's First Day — Duration of Adam's Existence on the Sixth Creation Day — The Institution of the Sabbath, Necessi- tating the Counting of Days, as the Starting Point of Time — The Fall of Man as the Reason for and Origin of Time, the Sabbath, and the Bible — The One Common Head of the Human Race. CHAPTER III. The Weekly Cycle and the Pkimitive Sabbath 70 The First Day of Time as Completing the Sense of God's Model Week — The Sabbath as the Seventh Day of the Model Week and the First Day of the Time Week — The Two-fold (Memorial and Typical) Signifi- cance of the Sabbath — Why Only the Creation Reason was Appended to the Sabbath Law in Exodus 20 — Three Reasons Why Only the First Day of the Week Sabbath Conforms Perfectly to the Creation Model — The Sabbath as Belonging in a Sabbath Sense to the Six Days Before, from Which it is the Resting — The Sabbath Law Independent of Chronological Limita- tions — First Things as God's — Memorial Analysis of the Sabbath — Reply to Adventists- Argument that God Can- not Change the Day of the Sabbath — Double Memorial Theory — The Moral and the Economic Elements of the Sabbath as Related to the Moral Law — Reasons Dis- proving the Theory of No Sabbath Before the Manna — Reasons Disproving the Theory that the Original Weekly Cycle and the Original Day of the Sabbath were Lost. CONTENTS XI CHAPTER IV. PAGE SUN-WOESHIP AND OkIGIN OF THE DaY NaMES 92 Universality of Sun-worship and Uniformity of the Day of Sun-worship Throughout the Ancient World — Com- mon Origin in the Original Day of the Sabbath the only Possible Explanation of the Uniformity of the Day — Sun-worship the Most Natural and hence the Earliest Perversion of the Original Worship of God — Origin of Sun-worship — The Day of Sun-worship but the Per- verted Day of the Original Sabbath — The Ever Increas- ing Force of Habit — Necessity of Changing the Day of the Sabbath to Make it a Sign Between God and the Israelites — Necessity of Restoring the Original Day of the Sabbath in Order to Vindicate God's Supremacy over Satan — Adventists* Attempt to Associate Sun-wor- ship with the Christian Sabbath — Origin of the Day Names — Reasons that Disprove the Theory that Satur- day was the First Day of the Week in the Egyptian Calendar. CHAPTER V. The Jewish Calendak 99 Reasons Which Argue that the Jewish Sabbaths were Both Fixed Days of the Week and Fixed Days of the Year, Making the Year an Even Number of Weeks (364 days) — The Intercalary Week Every Five or Six Years — Thirty-day Month — Lunar Theory — Supplementary Days at the End of the Year — All Calendars Subject to Periodic Correction — Distinction Between the Jewish Civil and the Jewish Sacred Year — The Two Equal Divisions of the Jewish Year — The Annual Sabbaths as "Besides" the Weekly Sabbaths— The Theory of Two- Days-as-One Sabbath at Pentecost Considered — The Jewish Sabbath as the First Day of the Week in the Jewish Calendar Which Had its Beginning in Ex. 12 : 2 —Two Definite Proofs Involved— The Change of Calen- dar the Proper Accompaniment to the Change in the Day of the Sabbath Eike a Modulation in Music. XH CONTENTS CHAPTER VI. PAGE Sabbath Testimony of the Ancient Calendars AND Languages , 118 The Original Weekly Cycle — The Two-fold Purpose of the Sabbath — The Probable Conditions that Existed at the Time the Earliest Calendars Were Formed — The Separation of the Worship Day Sense and the Rest Day Sense of the Sabbath in the Formation of the Ancient Calendars — The Month — The Ancient Calendar Sab- baths as Fixed Days of the Month and therefore not a Fixed Day of the Original Weekly Cycle — The Original Weekly Cycle Independent of All National Calendars Then as Now — The Method of Counting "into the Sab- bath" Implying Some Other Method by way of Distinc- tion — Reply to A. H. Lewis, D. D., Relative to the Ac- cadian Calender — Relative to the Calendar of India — Relative to the Hindus or Buddhist Calendar Reply Continued— The Chart of Weeks by W. M. Jones, D. D., Examined. CHAPTER VIL The Saturday Resurrection Theory Examined , 143 Reply to Dr. Lewis (the Originator of the Theory) — Reply to T. W. Richardson's Recent Revival of the Theory — The Apparent Discrepancies in the Four Ac- counts of the Resurrection Examined — Reply to A. G. Marks. CHAPTER VIII. The Fourth Commandment 173 The Seal Nature of the Creation Reason Appended to the Sabbath Law — The Creation Memorial Principle — The Double Memorial Nature of the Sabbath— The Jew- ish Sabbath a Type of the Christian Sabbath— The Christian Sabbath a Memorial of Creation — Gen. 2 : 3 CONTEXTS Xlll PAGE and Ex. 20 : 11 Examined — Reply to the Fixed Day- Argument Based on the Definite Article "the" and Pro- noun "it" — Reply to the Argument Based on the Words "keep holy" — The Day of the Sabbath not Specified Either in the Sabbath Law or in the Reason Appended — The Perfect Law of God — Reply to Argument Based on the Phrase "The Sabbath of the Lord"— The Day of the Sabbath an Economic, not a Moral, Issue — Seventh Day of the Week Sabbath Doctrine a Thinking to Change Times and the Law (Dan. 7 : 25 R. V.). CHAPTER IX The Double Meimoeial Jewish Sabbath . . 194 The Two Memorial Reasons Appended to the Fourth Commandment — The Exodus from Egypt as a Me- morial Reason for the Sabbath — Reason for Changing the Day of the Sabbath — Change of Day Implied in the Giving of the Manna — The Two Memorial Elements of the Sabbath Distinguished and the Necessary Conclu- sion — Counter Arguments Relative to Dcut. 5 : 15 Con- sidered — The Two Copies of the Law — Reasons Which Argue that Deut. 5 : 7-21 is a True Copy of the Law as Written on the Tables of Stone and therefore that Deut. 5 : 15 was the Reason Given for the Sabbath as Written on the Tables of Stone. CHAPTER X. The Double Memomal Christian Sabbath 214 Nature of the Change Involved in the Christian Sabbath — Gospel of the Resurrection — Redemption Planned Before the World was Created — The Resurrection the Climax of the Plan of Redemption — The Argument In- volved Relative to the Primitive Sabbath — The Transi- tion Sense of the Jewish Sabbath — The Argument In- volved in the Timing of the Resurrection — The Pre-emi- Xiy CONTENTS PAGE nence of the Redemption over God's Rest after Creation as a Memorial Event — Answer to the Question, "Where is the Authority for the Change in the Day of the Sab- bath?" — The Day of Sun-worship versus the Christian Sabbath. CHAPTER XI Pentecost 223 The Ten Days Waiting for the Promised Baptism of the Holy Spirit — The Argument Involved Relative to the Christian Sabbath — Admissions of Leading Seventh- day Adventists that Pentecost of Acts 2 was on Sunday —The Saturday Theory— The Bible Testimony— The "Type and Anti-type" Arguments — Relation of the Pentecost of Acts 2 to the Christian Sabbath. CHAPTER XII Sabbath Witnesses : David, Cheist, Spieit op Teuth , 235 David's Prophecy Regarding the Sabbath — Christ's Testimony Regarding the Sabbath — The Spirit of Truth. CHAPTER XIII Sabbath Witnesses : Paul, John, Luke . . . ., 250 Paul's Testimony Regarding the Sabbath — John's Testi- mony — Luke 23 : 56 Examined. CHAPTER XIV Sabbath Witnesses : Eaely Cheistian Weitees ,.., 283 Testimony of the Early Christian Writers — A Few Sup- plemental Testimonies — Admission of Andrews (the CONTENTS XV PAGE Adventist Historian) and the Practical Evidence Fur- nished Thereby — HisAttempt to Evade the Testimony — A Date Argument — Three Pertinent Questions. CHAPTER XV The Resurrection Testimony of the Christian Sabbath ^ 291 The Great Justification of the Christian Sabbath — Crea- tion and Redemption Compared — The Sense of the Sev- venth and the First Day of the Week Sabbaths Con- trasted — The Resurrection Gospel and the Resurrection Sabbath — Reason w^hy Satan Would Gladly Blot out Every Witness to the Resurrection — The Christian Sab- bath as a Memorial of the Resurrection the Strongest of Witnesses — Satan's Campaign Against it — His Tac- tics — Those Whom He Most Easily Deceives. CHAPTER XVI The Seal of God . . ., 298 A Pertinent Question Relative to the Sabbath Seal Doc- trine — The Argument that "Sign" and "Seal" are used in the Bible as Synonymous Terms Considered — Char- acter Test Argument — Seal of the Holy Spirit — Resur- rection Seal — 7th Chapter of Revelation Discussed — The "Father's Name" the Symbolic Seal of Revelation 7 — The "Forehead" The "Father's Name"— Christian Character— The Foundation Seal (2 Tim. 2 : 19)— The Inevitable Tendency of the Sabbath Seal Doctrine — The Basis of the Sabbath Seal Doctrine. CHAPTER XVII The Mark of the Beast 309 The Parallel Argument — "His Name" or "Number of his Name" the "Mark of the Beast"— The "Number of his Name" Considered — Basis of the Sunday "Mark of the Beast" Doctrine— Argument Based on Rev. 13 : 17 — Satan an Experienced Strategist — Three Self-evident Propositions and the Consequent Conclusion — Satan's iXVl CONTENTS PAGE "Sunday Mark of the Beast" Campaign — The Sunday Sabbath and the Roman Catholic Church — The Lying Spirit — A Chain of Facts Proving that God, not the Roman Catholic Church, Established the Sunday Sab- bath — The "Sun-worship Origin of the Sunday Sab- bath" Argument Answered — The Council of Laodicea — Beginning of the Papacy — The "Dragon" and the Beast" — Satan's Two Attempts to Pervert the God Ap- pointed Day — Three Devices of Satan — Adventists' In- terpretation of Rev. 13 : 16,17 Considered — Adventists* Interpretation of Dan. 7 : 25 Considered — Basis of the Catholic Clairti to Establishing the Sunday Sabbath — : The $1,000 Reward. ti CHAPTEE XVIII Answek to Rome's Challenge ., 326 Authorship — Author's Editorial in Catholic Mirror — • Further Catholic Boastings — Adventist and Catholic Alliance — Reply to the Author's Editorial — Reply to Rome's Challenge — The Author's Boasting Prelude and Ranting Finale — Rome's Challenge Published by Ad- ventists in Support of their "Mark of the Beast" Doc- trine — The Boast of Unanswerability — Reason for An- swering it. , CHAPTER XIX The Decalogue 343 The Reason of its Pre-eminence — Permanent Char- acter — The Abolition Doctrine Considered — Paul's Fin- ale (Rom. 3 : 31)— The Abolition Involved in Eph. 2 : 15 and Col. 2 : 14— Rom. 14 : 5; Col. 2 : 16 and Gal. 4 : 10,11 Considered — The Burden of Paul's Teaching — 1 Tim. 1 : 9; Gal. 5 : 18,22,23; Rom. 6 : 14 and 7 : 4,6 Con- sidered — Rom. 2 : 14,15 — Paul's Argument Concerning the Promise to Abraham, Gal. 3 : 17 — Origin of Moral Precepts — The Argument Relative to the Two Cove- nants — The Letter and the Spirit of the Law — The Argu- ment in Christ's Vindication of the Eaw — Relation of CONTENTS XVil PAGE the Jews to the Covenants and the Law — The Terms "Moral Law" and "Ceremonial Law" — The Teaching- in Matt. 5 : 17,18; Luke 18 : 20 and Rom. 13 : 9— The Two Great Commandments of Love to God and Love to Man and their Relation to the Decalogue — The Moral Law Tree and the Cutting Off and Grafting- on Process to Get Rid of the Sabbath Brancl>— The Day of the Sab- bath Fixed by Providence — The Sabbath Precept Purely Moral — The Assumption Involved in the Decalogue Abolishing Theories — Effect of Said Theories. CHAPTER XX Sabbath Legislation ., 375 The Foundation Principle — The Sabbath as Fostering the Elements of Good Citizenship — Testimonies — Rela- tion of the Christian Sabbath to Christian Government — The Sabbath and Man's Physical Welfare— The Sabbath and Man's Intellectual Welfare — The Sabbath and Man's Social Welfare — The Sabbath and Man's Moral and Religious Welfare — The Proper Extent and Limits of Sabbath Legislation — Relation of Sabbath Laws to Civil and Religious Liberty — Relation of Sunday Laws to the Saturday Keeping Sects — Some Adventist As- sertions Considered — The Questions of "Separation of Church and State" and "Religious Liberty"— The Right- ful Acknowledgment by the State of God's Authority — Sabbath Laws and Marriage Laws Justified on the Same Ground — The Persecution Argument Considered — Adventist Prophecy — Church Union — A Right Rela- tion Argument — The World Chess Game — The Conti- nental Sunday and the Anglo-American Sunday — Three Bible Rules— The True Line of Sabbath Reform — Christ's Interpretation of the Sabbath Law — Sunday Traffic — Sunday Labor — Sunday Amusements. APPENDIX— The Lying Spirit 424 (GE : Creation Exodus) CHAPTER I. THE CKEATION DAYS. Seventli-day Adventists teach that God created the heaven and the earth in six twenty-four hour days; that the weekly cycle then started has never been broken ; and that the seventh day of the week is the only true Sabbath because God rested on the sev- enth day as stated in Genesis 2 : 3. The whole question as to whether God rested on the seventh or on the first day of the first week of time depends on whether time began with the first day of creation or with the first time measured day of man. If the creation days were days of twenty-four hours, and therefore not different from time days, they would be a part of measured duration, or time ; and time would begin with the first day of creation. In which case, God rested on the seventh day of the first week of time. But, if the creation days were indefinite periods, as is now most generally accepted, they cannot be counted as a part of time; and time, of necessity, began with the first time measured day of man. In which case, God rested on the first day of the first week of time. 20 SABBATH THEOLOGY We see then that the twenty-four-hour creation- day theory is at the very foundation of the Advent- ists' seventh day of the week Sabbath doctrine; and both must stand or fall together. Does not the word *^day" literally mean twenty- four hours'? Not necessarily, neither in the origi- nal, as can be shown by any Hebrew lexicon, nor yet in the English, as for example, we read in Gen. 2 : 4, * ^ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.'' Here God created the earth and the heavens in one dav. But, according to Genesis 1, God created the heaven and the earth in six days. Evidently the word ^^day" cannot mean twenty-four hours in both cases. Even Adventists make no attempt to base their twenty-four-hour creation-day theory on the mean- ing of the word ^^day," but on the expression, ^Hhe evening and the morning," which occurs in connec- tion with the word ^^day" at the end of each crea- tion-day record in Genesis 1. The day has, in the rotation of the earth, a definite time marked type in nature, but morning and even- ing have no definite time marked type in nature ; and therefore the words ^^ morning" and ^^ evening" are even less definite than the word ^^day." We speak of the *^ morning of life," and of the ^^ evening of life" in just as correct a sense as we speak of the morning and the evening of the twenty-four hour day. We have been in the habit from childhood of asso- THE CEEATION DAYS 21 elating the word ^^day'^ with the twenty-four hour cycle, and this is how it gets its twenty-four hour meaning. But, ^^One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'' (2 Pet. 3 : 8.) In the same way, we have always associated the words ^ ^morning" and ^^ evening'' with the twenty- four hour day, and that is how they get their time- limited meaning. If we lift them out of this asso- ciation, they have no definite time value. In a gen- eral sense, ^'morning" means the first or early part, and *^ evening" means the decline or latter part. (See Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.) The general sense of a word is based on its real or inherent meaning. The local sense of a word is the result of a particular application of its real or inher- ent meaning. There is danger sometimes of con- fusing the application with the inherent meaning and accepting the application for the meaning. While the application should always be in harmony with the meaning, yet the meaning may admit of a wide application. This is the case with the words ^^ morning" and *^ evening." Even as applied to the twenty-four hour day, they are used very indefinitely. In their broadest sense, ^^ morning" is from midnight to mid- day and ^^ evening" is from midday to midnight. In a more limited and common sense, *^ morning" is from any time after midnight, or from early rising to sunrise, and ^^ evening" is from sunset to bedtime, or to any time before midnight. Morning cannot extend beyond midday, or evening beyond midnight, without doing violence to the inherent meaning of 22 SABBATU: THEOLOGY the words ; for the inherent sense of morning is the first or early part, and the inherent sense of ^ ^ even- ing^' is the decline or latter part. The morning always refers to the increasing part of the day, and the evening always refers to the decreasing part of the day — never the reverse. It will be found on examination that every refer- ence to the *^ morning'' and the *^ evening'' in the Bible is in perfect harmony with the inherent mean- ing of the words. When the words *^ morning" and *' evening" are used together in a twenty-four hour sense, they are always understood to mean from midnight to mid- night ; the morning extending from midnight to mid- day, or the increasing part of the day, as the word implies, and the evening extending from midday to midnight or the decreasing part of the day, as the word implies. Eeversing the words would not affect the limits of each, and therefore *' evening" and * ^morning," if used in a twenty-four hour sense, must mean from midday to midday. No other mean- ing is possible by reason of the inherent sense of the words ^^ evening" and ^^ morning." Adventists assume that the expression, ^^The even- ing and the morning," in Genesis 1, means from sun- set to sunset — the evening extending from sunset to sunrise, and the morning extending from sunrise to sunset, — thereby making the evening to extend past midnight into the following morning, and the morn- ing to extend past midday into the following even- ing, thus positively disregarding the inherent mean- ing of the words. We must give Moses credit for using the words in their proper or true sense. THE CREATION DAYS 23 The expression, ^'at even, wEen tlie snn was set," in Mark 1 : 32, implies that the even began at sun- set ; but that it did not extend to sunrise is shown in the 35th verse, '^And in the morning rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." There- fore morning began a ^^ great while before day." This only shows that the Bible uses the words *^even," or evening, and *^ morning" just as we use them to-day. The expression, ^^From even unto even," in Lev. 23 : 32, can, and undoubtedly did, mean from sunset to sunset; but it is very different in sense from the expression, ^'The evening and the morning," in Genesis 1, and there is no evidence that there is the slightest connection between them. ^^The evening and the morning" could, in a limited sense, mean from sunset to sunrise, but it could never mean from sunset to sunset without doing violence to the real sense of the words; for ^'sunset to sunset" includes a portion of the evening sense part of one day, and the whole of the morning sense part and a portion of the evening sense part of the next day. Nothing can be more certain than that Moses never intended ^'the evening and the morning" to be interpreted to mean from ^'sunset to sunset," if he had the slightest regard to the real meaning of the words. The command, ^^In the ninth day of the month from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sab- bath, " in Lev. 23 : 32, has all the appearance of a command first given in which some new feature is introduced. The words *'In the ninth day at even" 24 SABBATH THEOLOGY is a plain recognition of the fact tliat the even is the end, not the beginning, of the natural day. Cele- brating the Sabbath ^^from even unto even" did not change the natural day. Here, not Genesis 1, is the origin of the sunset to sunset method of reckoning time. In Deut. 5 : 15 God commands the Israelites to keep the Sabbath as a memorial of their exodus from Egypt. The memorial events of the Exodus began with the preparations of the evening before. It would be most fitting therefore that the Sabbath, as a memorial of the Exodus, be ^^from even unto even. ' ' Again, sun-worship, which began at sunrise, was the chief worship with which the Israelites were surrounded. In no other way could the Israelites' Sabbath be more strikingly contrasted than by begin- ning it at sunset. If God has the power to change the time of the Sabbath (which Adventists deny), and did change it, to make it a special sign between Himself and the Israelites to distinguish them as His peculiar peo- ple, could He not change the hour of its beginning as easily as to change the day? And would he not do it, if thereby it would be a more distinguishing sign? And would not the reasons here given be satisfactory and natural reasons for God's com- manding the Israelites to ^^ celebrate" their Sabbath ^'from even unto even!" Moreover, the inference of every passage of Scrip- ture before Lev. 23 : 32 that carries any inference at all on the point, is that the day began with the morning. For example, Ex. 32 : 5,6, Aaron said, ** To-morrow is a feast to the Lord. And they rose THE CREATION DAYS 25 up early on the morrow/' The words **rose ap early'' shows that the morrow began with the morn- ing. It certainly did not begin at sunset before they went to bed. The Adventists cannot find a single passage of Scripture between Genesis 1 and Lev. 23 : 32 that bears the slightest inference to the contrary; so that Genesis 1 and Lev. 23 : 32 are their sole dependence to sustain their ^^ sunset to sunset" theory. The theory is based only on a mere imaginary resem- blance between *^the evening and the morning" in Genesis 1 and ^^from even unto even" in Lev. 23 : 32. But if the same meaning was intended in both cases, we can be quite sure that at least equivalent expressions w^ould have been used. Adventists further attempt to sustain their sun- set to sunset theory by assuming that '^evening" means night and ^^ morning" means day. But God called the darkness Night and the light Day. What authority have Adventists for changing God's de- finitions? Evening and darkness are quite differ- ent definitions for night; and morning and light are quite different definitions for day. Adventists say ^^Just let the Bible interpret itself." This is one example of how they *^just let the Bible inter- pret itself." The expression, ^^The evening and the morning" immediately follows God's definitions of night and day in Gen. 1 : 5. This fact in itself increases the presumption in assuming that *'the evening and the morning" means the *^ night and the day;" for the closer the connection, the more direct the con- 26 SABBATH THEOLOGY tradiction. Did God define the meaning of Night and of Day and immediately ignore those defini- tions I Do we go to a dictionaiy to find the definition of a word and immediately ignore that definition? We read in Gen. 1 : 3-5, ^^And God said, Let there be light : and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the * evening and the morning were the first day.' '' The word ^^ light'' in the first four cases is clearly general in sense. Then there can be no good reason for not giving it the same general sense in the re- maining case. Darkness, as the opposite of light, must be regarded in the same general sense. There- fore, Day and Night are merely the names given to light and darkness in the general sense that all light is day and all darkness night, without any reference to time. There are people living within the Arctic Zone where the day in the summer and the night in the winter are of several months dura- tion. This shows that the day or the night is only a question of light or darkness, and time has noth- ing to do with it. Therefore, the words ''Night" and ''Day" in Gen. 1 : 5 have no time limiting ef- fect on the expression, "the evening and the morn- ing" which immediately follows. We here quote from J. N. Andrews (Adventist), "And now He separates the light from the dark- ness. He calls the one day and the other night. This is why in the divine order the night makes the first division of the twenty-four hours. And the Bible informs us that the evening and the morn- THE CREATION DAYS 27 ing, that is, the night and the clay, were the first day. This is a decisive proof that the days of Mosaic record were such days as an evening and a morn- ing constitute, namely, days of twenty-four hours.'' {The Sahhath and the Law, page 6). God called the light ^'Day'' and the darkness ** Night," but Mr. Andrews takes it on himself to change God's definitions; for he says that ^^tlie evening and the morning" means the night and the day. We only answer this presumption by pointing to the literal meaning of the words ^'evening" and *^ morning." Adventists, who pose as the cham- pions of literal interpretation, should not object to the literal meaning of the words. He says, ^'This is why in the divine order the night makes the first division of the twenty-four hours." But we fail to see the why in the reason given, for God named the *^Day" first when He separated the light from the darkness; and in Jer. 33 : 25,26, He points to the immutability of His covenants ^^with day and night" and the ** ordin- ances of heaven and earth." Thus, in God's coven- ant in nature, the day is put first. Where then does Mr. Andrews draw his inference that God ordained the night to be the first division of the twenty-four hours? — Evidently, from the expression, ^^The even- ing and the morning," by assuming that it means ^Hhe night and the day," in direct contradiction to God's own definitions. Mr. Andrews should have backed up his asser- tion, that ^'in the divine order the night makes the first division of the twenty-four hours," by stating where the Bible ordains such a division; for no 28 SABBATH THEOLOGY division is binding without a command to make it binding. The mere fact that darkness naturally existed before light was created is hardly equivalent to a command. There is no command making such a division binding. But he probably assumes that the expression ^Hhe evening and the morning" is the equivalent of such a command. We see then that one assumption is based upon another in an all too evident effort to sustain the sunset to sun- set theory. The fact that God separated the light from the darkness Mr. Andrews gives as the reason why God ordained the night to be the first division of the twenty-four hours. He evidently infers that God put the night before the day to commemorate the fact that darkness existed before the light. If this was God's purpose, He surely would have selected a more suitable tjipe than the sunset to sunset day, which begins with the light at sunset. The midnight to midnight day would be a much more fitting memorial type, for it begins with mid- night darkness; and only midnight darkness is a fit type of the darkness that existed before light was created. Thus the sunset to sunset day lacks the essential element necessary to make it a fit type ; but the midnight to midnight day contains the es- sential element, — the darkness at the ending being but the necessary leading back to the typical dark- ness with which the next day begins. The natural day, and hence the God appointed day "(for God is the God of nature), is from midnight to midnight. Day, according to the Bible, is only God's name for light (Gen. 1 : 5) and the light practically THE CREATION DAYS 29 begins and ends at midnight, so far as its increasing and decreasing limits extend. Therefore the day, in the sense of a recurrence of light, must increase and decrease with the light and so extend from midnight to midnight. Thus God has fixed immutably in nature the mid- night to midnight day; and hence the Adventists' ^^ sunset to sunset'^ theory is only a thinking ^Ho change" God's time order in nature. Morning and evening in a twenty-four hour sense mean from midnight to midnight ; hence, if the crea- tion days were days of twenty-four hours, Moses would certainly have said, *^The morning and the evening was the first day;" and the statement that ^Hhe evening and the morning were the first day," which Mr. Andrews seems to think is decisive proof that the creation days were twenty-four hour days, we propose to show in decisive proof that they were not twenty-four hour days. We admit that the expression, *^The evening and the morning" must and does define the creation days in some sense. There are only two possible senses in which it can do so; one is the duration sense, and the other is the change of condition sense : for there are only two considerations involved in the Creation; one is the duration consideration, the other is the change of condition consideration. It is the change of condition, not the duration in- volved in each creation day, that constitutes the fact of Creation; and the fact is the only consideration worthy of notice. For whether the Creation took place in six twenty-four hour days or in a million 30 SABBATH THEOLOGY years cannot cliange tlie fact in tlie slightest de- gree, and we can be sure tliat Inspiration dealt with the one only important consideration — that on which the fact of creation rests. 1. — To prove that Moses (or Inspiration) did not have the duration of the creation days in mind, we call special attention to the significance of the reversed order of the words ^'morning'' and ^'even- ing'' in the expression, ^^The evening and the morn- ing. ' ' Morning means the first or early part : even- ing means the decline or latter part. The first or early part of anything must, in the very nature of things, be before the decline or latter part: a day cannot decline before it has had a beginning, or first part. Anything involving duration must have a beginning or first part before it can have an ending or last part. Therefore the natural order would be morning and evening. Now, if the natural order of the words *^ morning and evening '^ express a definite day, then their re- verse order expresses the reverse of a definite day, i. e., an indefinite day, or period. The very reversed order in ^Hhe evening and the morning" makes the expression indefinite because without definite be- ginning and ending, in that the natural beginning and ending are reversed. A natural day must have a first part, or morning before it can have a latter part, or evening. Would God, who is the God of nature, contradict Himself by reversing the order of nature? Would the God of nature prefer an order contrary to nature and put the end before the beginning, or else join the latter half of one day to the first half of the next and call THE CREATION DAYS 31 them a dajl Did God begin the first day with the lat- ter half of a preceding unrecorded day? Then what became of the first half of that unrecorded day I This is the unavoidable tangle involved in the ex- pression, ^'The evening and the morning," if we try to give a definite time measure meaning to it; for we must credit Moses with using the words in their proper sense, — surely not in the exact reverse of their proper sense, — and it is impossible to get away from the fact that ^^ evening" means the decline or latter part and ^^ morning" means the first or early part. We conclude, therefore, that Moses reversed the natural order of the words ^^ morning" and ^^ even- ing" for the very purpose of reversing their ordinary time measuring sense, to indicate that the creation days were indefinite periods. 2. — To prove that Moses had in mind the change of condition involved in the creation days, w^e call special attention to the fact, that, though ^ ' the even- ing and the morning" is the reverse order in the time measuring sense, yet it is the natural order in the change of condition sense; for each creation- day, even were it a million years, involves first the gradual decreasing or passing away of a former con- dition, and second the gradual increasing or com- ing in of a new condition. The old condition must first pass away to give place to the new. Evening fitly expresses the decreasing, passing away, or de- cline of the old condition; and morning fitly ex- presses the coming in, or increasing of the new con- dition. Hence, ^^The evening and the morning" is the natural order in the change of condition sense. 32 SABBATH THEOLOGY Again, we call special attention to tlie fact that the literal rendering, as shown by the marginal refer- ence, is '^The evening was and the morning was the first day ; ' ^ or, which is the same, ^ ' The evening was the first day and the morning was the first day." The sense of which would be that the evening and the morning each was the entire day. This completely destroys the time measuring, half and half, sense of the words ^'evening'' and ^^ morn- ing,'' but harmonizes perfectly with their change of condition sense ; for the Creation would naturally involve a gradual and continual change of condi- tion, and each complete change of condition would mark the period of a day. The condition prevail- ing at the beginning of each day would gradually decrease to the end of the day, and the new con- dition commencing at the beginning of each day would gradually increase to the end of the day. The former condition gradually giving place to the lat- ter, so that the latter increases as the former de- creases, and thus each was the entire day. Therefore, the literal rendering, ^^The evening was and the morning was the first day," plainly shows that the evening and the morning were not separate halves of the day but each was the entire day : the evening in a decreasing sense, as the word implies, and the morning in an increasing sense, as the word implies, — such as a gradual change of con- dition from the beginning to the end of each Crea- tion day would involve. (The revised version also gives the same sense.) The condition at the beginning of the first day of Creation was total darkness; but God spake forth THE CREATION DAYS 83 the light and divided the light from the darkness:' this made a complete change of condition and was the first day. God made the firmament, or atmos- phere, and divided the waters below from the waters above : this made another complete change of condi- tion, and was the second day. God gathered the waters together, and made the dry land to appear and covered it with verdure: another complete change of condition, or the third day. God cleared the sky, and made the greater and the lesser lights and the stars to appear: another complete change of condition, or the fourth day. God filled the waters with fish, and the air with fowls: another complete change of condition, or the fifth day. Lastly, God filled the land with all manner of animal life, end- ing in the creation of man : another complete change of condition, or the sixth day. These changes were not a question of duration but of condition. The indefinite period creation-day theory thus points out the necessary or natural order of crea- tion, and the distinct phases of its development. A simpler division could not have been made. The six changes of condition were necessary to make the earth a fit abode for man. Perhaps some may think that the third and fifth creation days embraced two separate and distinct changes of condition, and therefore might have been sub-divided. Thus, on the third day, the gather- ing of the waters together and the appearing of the dry land might be considered one distinct change of condition, and the covering of the dry land with grass, herbs, and trees, another distinct change of condition. But it will be conceded that 34 SABBATH THEOLOGY these two clianges would naturally take place almost, if not quite, simultaneously, for the dry land began to appear, no doubt, very early in the day, and as soon as it appeared the conditions of plant life be- gan to exist: and the very existence of the condi- tions of plant life may, in a very true sense, be re- garded as God's voice calling plant life into exist- ence. Therefore the two changes of condition are practically one as regards duration. Similarly, the two clianges of condition mentioned in the fifth day were doubtless practically one as regards duration. We cannot doubt the fact of Creation because it is ever before our eyes. The fact naturally calls forth an inquiry as to its origin, for it must of neces- sity have an origin, and there evidently can be but one true explanation of its origin. The Bible is the record of God's dealings with man, and it is but fitting that it be prefaced by the true account of man's origin and the origin of all things on which his existence depends, thus leading back to the true beginning in God, and setting forth the relation existing between God and man. The question arises, Did Moses write the Crea- tion account by inspired discernment or by direct revelation? The statement will hardly be ques- tioned that God does nothing that is unnecessary. If Moses could have written the account by inspired discernment, then a direct revelation was not neces- sary. By a study of the Creation account it will be seen that it is a simple statement of the natural and inevitable changes of condition that must of very necessity have taken place during the process of the THE CREATION DAYS 35 earth's development. These changes of condition and their order were all within the range of inspired discernment; but the exact duration of each change was entirely beyond the range of inspired discern- ment and, if revealed at all, must have been re- vealed by direct revelation. Therefore, if Moses wrote by inspired discernment, he could only have had in mind the changes of condition involved in the Creation; for he could not have discerned the exact duration of each change by any process of reason though quickened by inspiration. If it were not necessary for man to know the ex- act duration of each creation-day, that fact would be proof that God did not reveal it, on the principle that God does nothing that is unnecessary. The creation days were before man was created, hence the knowledge of their duration is beyond the reach of man's testimony, and therefore wholly within God's OAvn power. Christ said, ^^It is not for vou to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own pov/er" (Acts 1 : 7). The knowdedge could not alter the result of the Crea- tion one iota. Then what benefit could it be to man? What purpose then could God have in revealing it! — for he does nothing without a purpose. The second account of Creation begins thus: *' These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (Gen. 2 : 4). Here the earth and the heavens were created in one day, but according to Genesis 1, they were 36 SABBATH THEOLOGY created in six days. The word ^^day" cannot mean twenty-four hours in both places. How then can we know that it means twenty-four hours in either place! Certainly not by the expression *^The even- ing and the morning/' which, as we have shown argues only the reverse. Adventists seem to avoid this second account ; but it is in the Bible, and is therefore just as authentic as the account in Genesis 1. Can Adventists har- monize the two accounts by their twenty-four hour creation-day theory? — Hardly. We see that the word *^day'' in the second ac- count covers the entire six days of the first account. Therefore, ** generations" in the second account must correspond to the days of creation in the first account. But if the days of creation in the first ac- count were twenty-four hours each, then the ^^gen- erations'' in the second account must be twenty- four hours each. Can any one believe that Moses intended to convey the meaning of twenty-four hours by the word * * generation?' ' Yet this is what Adven- tists must assume. Turn now to the 90th Psalm, and notice first, that it was written by Moses, as seen by the title. In the 4th verse he says, *^For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Notice too, that these words were called forth by an immediate reference to the Creation, for we read in the 2nd verse, ** Be- fore the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the w^orld, even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God." Now try to imagine Moses — with the Creation in THE CREATION DAYS 37 mind and the twenty-four hour conception of the creation-days — exclaiming, ^^For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night !'^ The absurdity is apparent. That Moses regarded a day in God's sight as an indefinite period is clearly inferred from these words. Inspiration cannot contradict itself, and there- fore Inspiration did not give Moses one conception of a day in God 's sight in Genesis 1 and a different conception in Psalms 90 : 4. Now read the 2nd verse again, *^ Before the moun- tains were bi^ought forth or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting. Thou art God." Note the three steps and the sequence involved, and that the very sense of the sequence requires that each step leads up to a point where the next begins and, that the final step or climax — ^^even from everlasting to everlasting," etc. — begins, as the word ^^even" infers, at the point w^here imagination can go no farther ; thus implying that the preceding step, or the Creation reference, has already carried the thought up to this point. Moses is here trying to give a conception of the everlasting nature of God by pointing out that He existed before the farthest reach of the imagina- tion. The fact that he used a reference to the Crea- tion to lead up to this climax shows that, to his mind, the Creation thought carried the imagination to its farthest limit, and was therefore a fit pre- lude to lead up to the thought of the everlasting nature of God. If the Creation reference meant only a span of six twenty-four hour days — before 38 BABBATH THEO^jOGY^ wliicli God existed — it would not only liave weak- ened tlie force of the sequence, but would have been a very tame prelude to lead up to the climax, as it would not have required the slightest effort of the imagination. When we take into consideration, therefore, the thought which Moses wished to bring out in using the creation reference, we may be quite certain that to his mind it involved a far-reaching conception. Only such a conception could have caused him to ex- claim in the 4th verse, ^'For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night ! ' ' Again, when Moses had occasion to refer to ^Hhe days that are past,'^ he was very careful to dis- tinguish them from the creation-days by specifying that they were ^ ^ since the day that God created man upon the earth;'' for we read in Deut. 4 : 32, ^'For ask now of the days that are past, which were be- fore thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth." In the expression, *^ Since the day that God created man upon the earth" the word ^^day" evidently refers to the sixth day of creation on which man was created, and is not included in ^^the days that are past" which are since that time. Here Moses clearly does not include the days of creation with ^Hhe days that are past." If the days of creation were days of twenty-four hours, and therefore not different from time days, there would be no good reason for not including them in the ^'the days that are past;" but if the creation days were indefinite periods, they could not be included in ^'the days that are past." The very fact that Moses THE CREATION DAYS 39 did not include them in ^Hhe days that are past'^ is strong evidence that he did not regard them as days of twenty-four hours, but as indefinite periods, be- longing to eternity and not to time, and therefore could not be included in ^^the days that are past/' At least he did not presume, as Adventists do, to measure God's days by man's twenty-four hour standard. Adventists may say that Moses here referred only )to that portion of ^Hhe days that are past" which belongs to man's time because the questions that 'follow refer only to man. But why then did he specify at all? Would six twenty-four hour days make any material difference? Would Moses speci- fy so particularly just to separate 2,500 years of 365 days each from six days of the same kind? We may substitute the antecedent of a pronoun for the pronoun. Now substitute ^Hhe days that are past" for the pronoun ** which," the passage will then read, ^^The days that are past were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth." The phrase ^'before thee" defines the lat- ter end of *Hhe days that are past" and may there- fore be omitted since it has no bearing on the ques- tion concerning the beginning of time ; and the pas- sage then becomes a positive declaration that ^^The days that are past were since the day that God created man upon the earth." A more direct and positive statement would be impossible. Thus a grammatical analysis of the passage makes its meaning unmistakable. To insist on the theory that time began with the first day of crea- tion, in the face of this positive statement to the 40 SABBATH THEOLOGY contrary, is to put a man conceived theory above the inspired word of God. Returning to Dent. 4 : 32,33, we read further, *^For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the dav that God created man upon the earth, and ask from one side of heaven unto the other whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it ! Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?'' Moses here refers directly to God's speaking the Ten Commandments in the hearing of the people; and in those Ten Commandments are the words, *^For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth," etc. This is the only reference to the creation days in the Ten Commandments. Moses then did not count the creation days as a part of time when mak- ing a direct reference to the Ten Commandments. Then are the creation days to be counted as a part of time in the only reference to the creation days in the Ten Commandments? The fourth commandment says, '^Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work,'' etc., and the reason appended is, ^^For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth," etc. Adventists say that if *^day" means twenty-four hours in one place it must also mean twenty-four hours in the other. The answer is that the word ^^day" is not used in the same sense in both places. In the first place it is used in the sense of copy; in the second place it is used in the sense of model or pattern. The first are man's days to be measured by man's twenty- THE CEEATION DAYS 41 four hour standard: the second are God^s days to be measured by God's standard (2 Pet. 3:8; Ps. 90 : 4). Besides, Moses himself drew a line be- tween God's creation days and man's time days in a still closer connection in Deut. 4 : 32; and thus Deut. 4 : 32 furnishes the key to the distinction be- tween man's time days in the fourth commandment and God's creation days in the reason appended. The Creation week is the model, and man's week is the copy. The copy may be on a very small scale as compared to the model, and yet be a true copy or imitation. The model expressed in the copy is merely God's thought expressed in terms of man's thought. Now sum up the testimony of Moses : — 1. — ^'The evening and the morning were the first day." — Gen. 1 : 5. 2. — *^ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." — Gen. 2 : 4. 3. — ^^For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." — Ps. 90 : 4. (Immediately preceded by a reference to the Creation in verse 2.) 4. — *^For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth." — Deut. 4 : 32. (Immediately followed by a reference to the giving of the Law; which includes the fourth commandment.) These passages must harmonize or make Inspira- tion through Moses contradict itself. 42 SABBATH THEOLOGY In the first two passages it is evident that the word ^^day'' cannot mean twenty-four hours in both, so that to base the twenty-four hour creation day theory on the meaning of the word '^day'^ is already rendered impossible at the start. The expression ^^The evening and the morning'' is therefore the Adventists' only hope. But the very reversing of the natural order of the words *^ morning'' and *^ evening," taken in connection with their literal meaning, indicates that Moses re- versed them for the very purpose of expressing an indefinite period; and their reverse order taken in connection with the literal rendering — ^^The even- ing was and the morning was" — shows that Moses meant a change of condition instead of duration, as already shown. The third passage shows that a day in God's sight has no definite time value, but is merely a type, and taken in connection with the reference to the crea- tion in the second verse, shows that Moses did not measure God's days by man's twenty-four hour standard. Finally, in the fourth passage, Moses does not in- clude the Creation days in ^ ^ the days that are past ; ' ' thus showing that he did not regard the Creation days as a part of time. Thus we see that these four passages from Moses harmonize perfectly according to the indefinite peri- od Creation-day theory. Can Adventists harmonize them by their twenty-four hour Creation-day the- ory? It is evidently impossible. Can there then be any doubt which is the correct theory? THE CREATION DAYS 43 Turn now to 2. Pet. 3 : 8, ''One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ' ' The evident meaning of which is that the day in God's sight has no definite time value. Now notice particularly that here too these words were called forth by an immediate reference to Crea- tion. Begin at the 3rd verse and read, ''Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scof- fers, walking after their own lusts,' and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, per- ished : but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thou- sand years, and a thousand years as one day. ' ' It is here plainly stated that the heavens and the earth were (created) by the word of God and are now kept and reserved by the same word. Both the creation and the keeping are by the same word. The two thoughts are set in direct contrast ; and since it takes both thoughts to make the contrast, therefore, Peter could not have had one thought without the other in mind when he said, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This then shows Peter's conception of the creation days, as well as the keeping days; and 44 SABBATH THEOLOGY the admonition ^'Beloved he not ignorant of this one thing/' shows the importance which he attached to it. This expression of Peter's, and the similar ex- pression of Moses in Psalms 90 : 4, were both called forth by a contemplation of the Creation. Now the contemplation of a six twenty-fonr-hour-day Crea- tion simply could not have called forth these expressions. Since the creation days were before man's days, they are in an entire sense God's days, and thus separate and distinct from man's days. God has by inspiration (2 Pet. 3:8; Ps. 90 : 4) clearly made known the indefinite value (in a time sense) of the day in His sight. This then is the measure of God 's days. For in the mind of the Eternal Creator of the universe, duration is not measured by the rota- tion of one small planet. In the very nature of the case, the measure of the earth's rotation, or twenty-four hours, can only measure time on the earth and in the mind of man ; for it is only the mind of man, not the mind of God (aside from His dealings with man), that takes ac- count of it, as clearly shown in 2 Pet. 3 : 8 and Ps. 90 : 4. Therefore it cannot be the measure of the creation days before there was a mind of man to take account of it. God undoubtedly recognizes the fact that the twenty-four day is the most natural measure of time for man's use, and He undoubtedly recognizes man's days, but only in His dealings with man and be- cause of His dealings with man, while in His own THE CEEATION DAYS 45 private counsel He still maintains His own reckon- ing regardless of man's twenty-four hour measure. This is clear from 2 Pet. 3 : 7-9 ; for the present and the future are involved in the keeping in store men- tioned in verse 7, and this was what Peter had im- mediately in mind when he said, *^One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Again, in verse 9, he says, ^^The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to usward, not will- ing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'' The reason then that the Lord delays the promise of His coming is because He is unwilling that any should perish ; and the slackness concerning His promised coming is only apparent, because of the fact that He does not count time as man counts, for, ''One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So we see that while God recognizes man's days in His dealings with man, yet in His own private counsel He maintains His own separate reckoning. We have certainly established more than a doubt in regard to the truth of the twenty-four hour crea- tion-day theory. But if we had done nothing more than to establish a doubt, it would be presumption, in the face of that doubt, to apply positively man's twenty-four hour measure to the creation days, which, in their very nature, belong to God's own private counsel. Note the presumption implied in God's challenge, ' ' Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words with- out knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; 46 SABBATH THEOLOGY for I will demand of tliee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest! or who hath stretched the line upon it ? ' ' — Job 38 : 24,25. Is not this challenge applicable to any who pre- sume to know the duration involved when God * ' laid the foundations of the earth f Where is the chal- lenge in the question, ^^Who hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest?" if we may with impunity apply a twenty-four hour day measure to it? for duration is evidently one of the measures involving conditions of the Creation. Adventists will say, that if the six creation days were indefinite periods, then the seventh day on which God rested must also be an indefinite period. Inasmuch as God's rest day belongs both to God's days and man's days, it doubtless has a two-fold time meaning. It may be regarded as a twenty-four hour day from man's standpoint, — for God certainly rested on man's first time measured day. It may also be regarded as an indefinite period from God's standpoint, — for, in the sense that the Creation was pronounced '^finished," God has never yet ceased from resting by returning to His Creation work. God 's rest can only be represented in a time sense by the first time day on which God rested ; but there is nothing in the Bible account that necessarily limits God's rest to that one twenty-four hour day. The! record says, ^^Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. And on the sev- entli da}^ God ended His work which He had made; THE CREATION DAYS 47 and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.'' (Gen. 2 : 1-3). The fact that the Creation was ^* finished" makes it impossible that God rested one twenty-four hour day and then returned to His Creation work. God did not rest till the Creation was ^^ finished'' and we have no reason to think that he would have rested till the Creation was ^^ finished." God's rest meant a ^'finished" Creation; and, in so far as it meant rest from the Creation which was pronounced *^ fin- ished," His rest never has ended, and never will end till heaven and earth pass away and He creates them anew as predicted. The Bible predicts that the heaven and the eartli will pass away (Matt. 24 : 35; 2 Pet. 3 : 10; Heb. 1 : 11; Ps. 102 : 26; Isa. 51 : 6) and that God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Isa. 65 : 17; 66 : 22; 2 Pet. 3 : 13; Eev. 21 : 1). When God begins to create the new heaven and the new earth, then His seventh day of rest from the first Creation will be ended. When will this be? — At the coming of the Lord (see 2 Pet. 3 : 10). When did the angel sware **that there should be time no longer" (Eev. 10: 6) ? — ^When the seventh angel should begin to sound (verse 7). What happened when the seventh angel sounded? — ^^And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying. The king- doms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever." (Eev. 11 : 15). 48 SABBATH THEOLOGY Then wlien the Lord comes time shall be no longer. We also read, in Rev. 20 : 11,12, that when God shall sit on His throne of judgment, the earth and the heaven shall flee away. We find then that God's seventh day of rest and man's time both end at the coming of the Lord. God's rest does not imply forced idleness, any' more than Sabbath rest implies forced idleness. There are works of instruction, helpfulness, and mercy that are in perfect harmony with Sabbath rest. Gods work in redeeming man is truly in har- mony with Sabbath rest. Eemember, that it was only from His work of Creation which was pro- nounced ^^ finished," that He rested; and He rested because it was *^ finished." Any other work aside from that particular work from which He rested would not put an end to His rest from that parti- cular work. We read in Heb. 4 : 3, 9, 10, *^For we which have believed do enter into rest . . . There remainetli therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. ' ' This plainly teaches that the believer hath entered into rest by ceasing from his own works just as God hath en- tered into rest by ceasing from His work of crea- ting the heavens and the earth. If the believer's rest, into which he has entered by believing in Christ, is permanent, then are we to think of God's rest from Creation as limited to twenty-four hours? — If so, the comparison falls short. But we know that the believers' rest is as lasting as the '^finished" works of Eedemption THE CREATION DAYS 49 (John 19 : 30) : then the comparison justifies the assertion that God's rest is as lasting as the *' fin- ished '^ work of Creation. Therefore, we conclude that God's original seven day cycle began with the first day of Creation and will extend to the end of time. Adventists say that it is limited to seven days of twenty-four hours each. Which conception more nearly harmonizes with God's infinite and eternal nature? God said, *^My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" (Isa. 55 : 9). Therefore, though we can never attain to the height of God 's thought, yet we may be sure that the higher our thought, the nearer we are to God's thought. The twenty-four hour creation-day theory contra- dicts nature. This the Adventists themselves do not deny. Thus J. N. Andrews, one of their highest authorities says, **If it be objected that a day of twenty-four hours is inadequate to the w^ork of the first day of time, the answer is that this is all true, if the work of crea- tion be considered the work of nature ; for if nature had to create itself, all eternity would be insufficient for the work. But if an infinite Creator called the world into existence out of nothing, then the period of twenty-four hours was quite adequate for the work of the first day of time." {The Sabbath and the Law — page 7). In admitting, that according to nature the twenty- four hour creation-day was inadequate for the work done in it, he practically assumes that God — who is 50 SABBATH THEOLOGY the God of nature — created tlie heavens and the earth contrary to nature. Because eternity is insufficient for nature to create itself without God, does not argue that God did not work through nature. Nor is it a question of what God could do, but of what He did do. Adventists say that God cannot contradict Him- self. Then did the God of nature contradict Him- self by working contrary to nature? If the necessity required, doubtless God could work contrary to nature without contradicting Him-! self. But if the necessity did not require, God cer-, tainly could not work contrary to nature without contradicting His own nature, for He is the God of nature. If ^'a thousand years in God's sight are' but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night,'' there was certainly no necessity for Him to create the heavens and the earth in six twenty-four hour days contrary to nature. Christs' miracles were evidently beyond nature,' but not, necessarily, contrary to nature. He only used His supernatural power when natural means failed. He never unnecessarily opposed the laws of nature. He never performed a miracle from any selfish motive or to boastfully parade His power. His miracles were stamped as genuine in their very truthfulness to the divine nature, and justified in the lessons that needed to be taught, in the suffer- ing that needed to be relieved, and in His authority that needed to be attested. The great miracle of the Eesurrection was neces- sary to declare Christ to be the Son of God with power (Eom. 1 : 4), to attest His victory over sin THE CREATION DAYS 51 and death (1 Cor. 15 : 55-57), to witness God's ac- ceptance of the sacrifice (Acts 17 : 31), and to be the Christian's guarantee of his own resurrection (2 Cor. 4 : 14). If there was any conceivable justification for God's creating the heavens and the earth in six twenty-four hour days, contrary to nature, there would then be that much reason for assuming that He did; but in the very absence of any conceivable justification for it, there is no reason for assuming that He did. Would God dishonor His own laws in nature — which He Himself created and so jealously guards — by ignoring them Himself! Was He in such a hurry to create the heavens and the earth that He did it in six twenty-four hour days I Was the Creation the re- sult of a sudden impulse f Did delay tax His patience ? Would He secure greater honor by a short unnatural creation than by a long natural creation? Do we see God's infinite, eternal, and unchangeable char- acter more through a short unnatural creation theory than through a long natural creation theory? Do we get a higher conception of the holiness of God's laws through His dishonoring of them than through His honoring of them ? 1 Or, in short, do we get a higher conception of God through the twenty-four-hour creation-day theory than through the indefinite period creation-day theory? If we can determine which is the higher thought, we can safely judge that the higher thought is the nearer to God's thought; for, ^^ God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts." (Isa. 55 : 9). True science is God's word as truly as is the 52 SABBATH THEOLOGY Bible. Both contain the truth; and truth cannot contradict itself. We have no need to fear for the Bible if it is the true word of God. Science can only clear away false conceptions of the Bible, which always results in a higher conception of the charac- ter of God and of the Bible as His inspired word. The theory that the earth was the stationary cen- ter around which the universe revolved daily, was once held by the Church with all the tenacity with which Adventists still cling to the twenty-four-hour creation-day theory. In defending the former theory, the Church arrayed the Bible against science. In defending the latter theory, Adventists are doing the same. The natural result in the first case was a wave of infidelity that swept over Europe. The natural tendency in the second case is in the same direction. Adventists even boast that nearly all that leave them become infidels ; but they try to make the fact appear as an evidence that they teach the truth, because to deny the truth of the Bible is to become an infidel. But it is teaching false theories in the name of the Bible, thus arraying the Bible against the truth, that makes infidels. No doubt false theories have been held in the name of science as well as in the name of the Bible ; and a theory must be false that cannot be held in the name of both: for the Bible and science cannot contradict each other in any true sense, for both are the truth of God. All apparent contradictions therefore must be due to our imperfect understand- ing of one or the other. It is a mistake to think to defend the Bible against i THE CREATION DAYS 53 the light of science: the Bible needs defence only against such defenders, — whose defence is in the in- terest of a theory instead of the Bible. Science is the best defence of the Bible against false theories. Adventists admit, as we have shown, that the twenty-four-hour creation-day theory contradicts nature — to reveal the laws of which is the sole end of science. In defending the theory, Adventists pose as the defenders of the Bible. Then they are prac- tically defending the Bible against the teaching of science. They are in exactly the same position as the Church was when it defended the theory that the earth was the stationary center around which the universe revolved. The fact that they are defending a theory which the Bible does not necessarily teach (as the great majority of Bible scholars are agreed) shows that they are not so much concerned in defending the Bible as in defending their theory. And the fact, too, that they are defending a theory which in itself is not of the slightest consequence (since nothing can alter the fact of Creation), shows that there must be a reason behind it. And the reason is not difficult to see. The reason is that the twenty-four-hour creation- day theory is vital to their seventh day of the week Sabbath doctrine which is based on the assumption that God rested on the seventh day of the first week of time; and for this to be true, the creation days must be twenty-four hour days. Hence their Sab- bath doctrine must stand or fall with the twenty- four-hour creation-day theory. 54 SABBATH THEOLOGY Perhaps the least worthy of notice is what may Tbe called the ^* child thought ^^ argument; for ex- ample, see Adventist tract entitled, ^^How Esther read her Bible.'' The tract, however, bears di- rectly on the Sabbath question; but the ^' child thought" argument applies as well to the creation question. The twenty-four hour conception is the ^^ child thought" of the creation days; hence, according to the ^^ child thought" argument, it is the natural thought, and therefore the true thought. Just as well apply the *' child thought" argument to any other theological question. Would they put a child in a theological chair to teach theology? In reading, or hearing read, the Creation account for the first time, the child would naturally apply the twenty-four hour conception to the word ' ^ day, ' ' because it has never known any other. It would be absurd to expect anything else. Paul said, '^When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Cor. 13 : 12). Again he said, ''Be not children in understanding . . . but in understand- ing be men" (1 Cor. 14 : 20). When Christ said, ''Unless ye become as a little child," He undoubtedly meant in faith, not in understanding. If it was essential to salvation to know the dura- tion of the creation days, there would be some weight to the "child thought" argument, on the ground that God would not put any knowledge necessary to THE CEEATION DAYS 55 salvation beyond the reach of the weakest for whom salvation was provided. But our salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ ; ^'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." — 1 Cor. 3 : 11. CHAPTER 11. THE BEGINNING OF TIME. Eternity is duration in its unmeasured sense. Time is that portion of eternity, or duration, that is measured by man's day measure, — or, man measured duration. It is evident that the rotation of the earth on its axis every twenty-four hours furnishes the most natural unit of measure with which to measure dura- tion on the earth. The intelligent inhabitants, if such there be, of other worlds would doubtless, for the same reason, take theii unit of measurement from the rotation of their world, and, unless their world rotated in the same time as ours, their measure would be different from ours. But how they measure duration does not concern us. Time then is the measurement of duration by man on the earth. The Bible clearly teaches (2 Pet. 3-8; Ps. 90 : 4) that in His private counsel God does not measure duration by man's days, and therefore it is only in His dealings with man, and because of His dealings with man, that He recognizes (as the Bible shows) THE BEGINNING OF TIME 57 man's clays. It is merely a case of the Infinite mind adapting itself to the finite mind. There are, in a general sense, only two theories in regard to the beginning of time. One begins time with the first day of Creation : the other begins time since the creation of man. The whole question de- pends on whether or not the creation days were twenty-four hour days. If they were measured by the standard with which time is measured, they would necessarily be a part of measured duration, or time. Otherwise, they would belong to eternity. We have shown in the preceding chapter that the twenty-four hour creation-day theory contradicts the Bible, nature, and reason at every point. In Deut. 4 : 32, Moses clearly specified ^Hhe days that are past" as ^^ since the day that God created man upon the earth.'' God created man on the sixth day of Creation. Then the first time measured day following the sixth day of Creation was man's first day in a chronological (not birthday) sense. A person's birthday is never counted as the first day of his life in a chronological sense, for the simple reason that it is not a complete day and is therefore not a complete chronological, or time measuring unit. We cannot begin to measure at a point before the thing to be measured exists. Time, in a chronological sense, must have a definite begin- ing, and therefore must begin v/ith a complete time measuring unit. If we wish to find the age of a person who is dead, we subtract the date of his birth from the date of his death. Thus, we subtract, or take away, the day of his birth from the rest of his life. V 58 SABBATH THEOLOGY Besides the chronological sense of time ^here is,^ evidently, also a birthday or memorial sense, as when we commemorate our birthday or some Na- tional holiday or the weekly Sabbath, etc., in which the day of the event commemorated is the recognized starting point of the count. The chronological sense of time may be defined as the relation of time to a measuring unit. The memorial sense of time may be defined as the rela- tion of time to an event. The Jewish inclusive meth- od of reckoning, referred to later, clearly belongs to the latter sense. Genesis, chapters 5 and 11, give the chronology of the Bible from Adam to Abraham, and begins thus: *^And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Setli: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hund- red years ; and he begat sons and daughters : And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.'' (Gen. 5 : 3-5). Thus the Bible chronology begins with, ^'All the days that Adam lived. ' ' But the creation days were not a part of Adam 's life, and hence are not included in the Bible chronology. We have then two unmistakable proofs (Gen. 5 : 5 and Deut. 4 : 32) that Moses began the count of time with the first time measured day of man. Why do Adventist teachers (posing as the cham- pions of the literal interpretation and positive in- spiration of the Bible) ignore these plain proofs? The sole reason can only be that these proofs do THE BEGINNING OF TIME 59 not liarmonize with their twenty-four hour creation- day theory on which their seventh day of the week Sabbath doctrine so much depends. Is it not evi- dent then, that it is their theory, more than the Bible, that they are really concerned in sustaining? In Mr. Andrews' answer to Mede, Jennings, Akers, and Fuller, page 25, he says, *^The first chapter of Genesis contains a record which com- mences with what the Holy Spirit calls Hlie begin- ing/ Of what is this the beginning? of eternity! Mr. F. will not assert it, though he places this beginning in eternity; i. e., he asserts that the events of the six days of creation belong not to time, but to eter- nity. Perhaps Mr. F. will say that the beginning is simply the beginning of our world's history. But is it not true that God caused Moses to count time from that very point?" Answer. — No, God did not ^^ cause Moses to count time from that very point," for Moses did not count time from that point. Did Mr. Andrews never read Gen. 5 : 5 and Deut. 4 : 32, which clearly show that Moses counted time from the first time measured day of Adam! ^^In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). This merely states a self-^ evident truth ; for though eternity has no beginning, it is self-evident that all created things must have had a beginning. The very time vagueness of the statement is the extreme opposite in sense to a fixed time date, — such as six twenty-four hour days previ- ous to the creation of man would be, — which is proof, on the face of it that Moses had no fixed time date in his mind when he wrote it. Moreover, ^^tlie beginning/' in its farthest reach. 60 SABBATH THEOLOGY extends back over the duration involved in the crea-" tion of the entire universe, and it would be absurd to think that duration throughout the entire uni- verse is measured by the rotation of the earth, which is comparatively only a very insignificant planet among the countless rotating bodies that comprise the universe. / How could the inhabitants, if such there be, of other worlds, with differing rotation periods from ours, measure duration by the rotation of our earth! It would be contrary to the character of God, who is the God of nature, to make such an unnatural ar- rangement. Besides, the unmistakable inference in 2 Pet. 3 : 8 and Ps. 90 : 4 is that the God of the universe does not throughout the universe regard the twenty-four hour day measure, but only on the earth, in His dealings with man, and then only be- cause it is man's natural measure of time. Again, Mr. Andrews says (page 26), Mr. F. acknowledges the rest-day of the Creator to belong to time; but he denies this of the days which God employed in the work of creation. But observe that the day of God's rest is called the seventh day. Gen. 2 : 1-3. This shows that the rest-day of the Lord belongs to a series which commenced with what Moses calls Hlie beginning/ Mr. F. must there- fore admit that the six days belong to time, or else assert that the seventh day belongs to eternity. As he cannot ascribe the seventh day to eternity, he must acknowledge the six days of creation to be the first six days of time. ' ' Ansiver. — God's seventh day on which He rested THE BEGINNING OF TIME 61 extends to the end of time — it is Time. From what did God rest? — ^^From all his work which God created and made" (Gen. 2:3). Did He leave His work unfinished when Pie rested? — ^'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished" (Gen. 2:1). "Will Mr. Andrews assert that God rested one twenty-four hour day and then returned to finish His work of Creation? Can he point to any definite time since when God has returned to His work of Creation? God's rest from a '^finished" Creation must be as lasting as the ^'finished" Creation from which He rested. For, in the sense in which the Creation w^as pronounced "finished" (Gen. 2 : 1), God's rest can never cease by returning to finish that which vras pronounced "finished." The Bible predicts that the heaven and the earth Vv^ill pass away, and that God vvill create a new heaven and a new earth. Then, and not till then, will God's seventh day on which He rested from Creation be ended. Mr. Andrews argues that the seventh day on vrhich God rested must belong to the same series with the six days of Creation. Then the six days of Creation must be indefinite periods to belong to the same series with the seventh day — which is an indefinite period — unless Mr. Andrews can prove that God returned to His work of Creation after resting one twenty-four hour day. The original, or first day of time on which God rested — as representing the fact of God's rest — may be regarded, in view of Gen. 2 : 3, as the start- ing point of the weekly Sabbath, For, in so far as 62 SABBATH "theology the Infinite mind adapts itself to tlie finite mind in its dealings with man, it was truly God's original Sabbath. Besides, there is no other definite start- ing point to be found in the Bible before the giving of the Law on Sinai, and it is unreasonable to sup- pose that the Sabbath, which ^^was made for man,'' as Christ said, was withheld till then and given only to the Israelites. Again, Mr. Andrews continues (page 27), **He (Mr. F.) says that the day on which God rested was the first day of Adam's existence. But, for this to be true, Adam must have been created on the seventh day of the week; or, if such a thing be conceivable, he was created on the very line which divides the seventh from the sixth. But neither of these conclusions is truthful. Adam was created on the sixth day of the week and at a period in the day when very much of it remained unexpired." ' Would not Mr. Andrews subtract the date of his own birth from the rest of his life in computing his own age f Then what reason can he give for not ap- plying the same rule to Adam. It is impossible to apply the day measure at the exact point* in the day at which Adam's life began, for the Bible does not give the exact point; then it must be applied at the first natural day beginning point before or after. But, judging from the Crea- tion account, the greater part of the sixth day was before Adam's life. Then would it be correct to count the whole of the sixth day as the first day of his life ? It could be his first day only in a birth- day sense, not in a chronological sensef for we THE BEGINNING OF TIME 63 must remember that the day is the unit of measure, and as the measuring unit of man's life, it cannot be applied before his life begins, but must be applied at the first natural day beginning point after. Hence the only uniform and practical rule possible is to leave the day measures as nature itself has placed them, and count a man's life by the number of nat- ural days that follow after the beginning of his ex- istence. Does Mr. Andrews presume to ignore the only practical rule that ever did exist — the only chronological rule that has ever been recognized? Again, Mr. Andrews says (page 29), ^^Did Adam take a wife the day before his own existence com- menced? Did God cause the animals to pass in suc- cession before Adam that he might give them names suited to their several organizations, and yet no Adam exist till the follov/ing day? Did God place Adam upon probation, and threaten him with death in case he sinned, and Adam himself have no ex- istence till the ensuing day? And what about in- trusting him with the garden before there was any Adam to intrust with it? Will Mr. F. deny that these things required time?" Notice, in passing, that the question of time does not bother Mr. Andrews in the slightest when it comes to crowding creation ages into twenty-four hours. But he asks "Will Mr. F. deny that these (minor) things (which he enumerated) required time?" We presume, not very much, on the prin- ciple by which Mr. Andrews accounts for ages being crowded into hours. But, of course, the slightest particle of time is sufficient to prove Mr. Andrews' point as to the existence of Adam on the sixth day. 64 SABBATH THEOLOGY However, Mr. Andrews' wliole argument is based on a wilful misrepresentation of Mr. F.'s position; for Mr. Andrews knew full well that Mr. F. does not deny that Adam existed on the sixth day of crea- tion in a birthday sense, and that he only asserts that the day following on which God rested, was Adam's first complete day, or first day in a chrono- logical sense. Mr. F. undoubtedly accepts the record of the sixth day of creation as fully as does Mr. Andrews. So Mr. Andrews cannot thus evade the question of Adaiii's first day in a chronological sense, — for, re- member, it is the chronological, not the hirthdai;^ sense, that must determine the beginning of chrono- logy, or measured time. As to the duration required for God to do the things He did on the sixth day of creation after creating Adam, we are quite willing to accept Mr. Andrews ' own estimate, for there is no danger of his estimate exceeding twenty-four hours. We would not necessarily limit it even to twenty-four hours. Time is that part of duration which is measured by the day measure ; but until the day measure was applied, duration was still unmeasured in a time sense. If the sixth day of creation was an indefinite pe- riod, it is possible that Adam existed during that period for years without taking any more notice of the passage of duration than did the animals around him. No fear of death caused him to count the pass- ing days, for death had yet no more meaning to him than to the animals aroand him. He had as yet no conception of duration in a time limited sense any THE BEGINNING OF TIME 65 more than had the animals aronnd him, and not till the institution of the Sabbath, necessitating the counting of days, did he have any real occasion for taking account of time; and he would naturally therefore begin the count of time with the institu- tion of the Sabbath. All that went before was to him unmeasured duration. The institution of the Sabbath necessarily in- volved a certain amount of instruction in regard to the measurement of time. This instruction would not seem to be necessary until the institution of the Sabbath made it necessary. And, on the prin- ciple that God does nothing that is unnecessary, we conclude, that, with the Sabbath, God gave to Adam the necessary instruction in the measurement of time, and thus to Adam the first Sabbath would be- come the first definite day in a time measured sense. Hence we may reasonably conclude that the institu- tion of the Sabbath was the original occasion and therefore the starting point of man measured dura- tion, or time. It could still be said, in a day applied sense, that ^^all the davs that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years" (Gen. 5 : 5) ; for the day in an applied sense did not exist till it was first applied as a measure. The day measure doubtless existed indefinitely before man existed, and then perhaps indefinitely before it was applied by man as a mea- sure of duration; but time, in the sense of man measured duration, could not begin till man himself applied the day measure to it. The fall of m.an and his expulsion from the garden of Eden Vv^ould seem to be the true beginning of 66 SABBATH THEOLOGY time in a finite sense. Duration liad to Adam, doubt- less, no time limited meaning until, by reason of the death sentence for disobedience, God opened his eyes to its time limited meaning. Adam and Eve, like the animals around them, had yet no conscious need to mark the passage of duration. They were doubtless as unconscious of the passage of duration as they were of their own nakedness (Gen. 2 : 25 and 3 : 10,11), and their eyes were opened to the one fact, just as to the other, by eating of the ^'tree of knowledge of good and evil." (^^The tree of knowledge of good and eviP' was evidently meant to convey a truth, and whether we choose to take it literally or figuratively, the truth conveyed re- mains practically the same.) The Sabbath even would not seem to be a needful institution, either physically or morally, till sin made it needful, — for the same reason that animals in their natural state need no sabbath. The Bible it- self, as the guide to show man the way back to God, would not have been needed except for the fall, whereby man through disobedience became separ- ated from God. Hence there is reason to conclude that time and the Sabbath as well as the Bible had their origin in the fall of man. From this view, however, time did not begin with God's rest from Creation, unless the third chapter of Genesis is also included in the sixth day of crea- tion. This is not improbable since Genesis 3 has all the indefinable character of the Creation account, and we cannot be sure that there were no unrecorded acts of creation during that period; nor at what point Adam's creation reached the perfected stage THE BEGINNING OF TIME 67 of development required as the appointed head of the human race, and God pronounced the Creation *^ finished.'' But whether Genesis 3 is included in the Creation or not, — i. e., whether time began at the end of Genesis 2 or of Genesis 3, — in any case, the first day of time would establish the fact of God's rest in a time sense, and thus represent the fact of God's rest. And no other day than the first could thus establish the fact of God's rest, — in that it was al- ready established in the firsts — and therefore no other day than the first could represent the fact of God's rest. Some may hold the theory that the Sabbath was appointed after the beginning of time. But even if this were true, the after appointment would only confirm the day fixed by God's resting on the first day of the first week of time, just as the manna con- firmed the day fixed by the Exodus, and the out- jjouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost confirmed the day fixed by the Eesurrection. For, in each case, the reason for and the appointment of must correspond in the day of the week, if the latter is to commemorate the former in a fixed day of the week sense. Thus we see that, in any case, we must conclude that the primitive Sabbath was on the first day of the week, unless we accept the Adventists' twenty- four hour creation-day theory, making Time begin with the first day of creation instead of v/ith the first time measured day of man. But we have shown in Chapter I. that the twenty-four hour creation-day theory contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible. 68 SABBATH THEOLOGY The question of the beginning of time is of no practical importance except as it bears on the Sab- bath question. The various diverging and subdiverging branches of the human race argue one common head just as the diverging and subdiverging branches of a tree argue one common trunk; for the converging back- ward toward the beginning must inevitably lead to one common head. There is no other possible final termination of the converging principle. The one common head of the human race is therefore the natural conclusion, as well as the unmistakable teaching of the Bible. All created things necessarily had their begin- ning in creation, and, back of all, is necessarily the creator; for self -creation is logically unthinkable. *^God created man'' (Gen. 1 : 27), is therefore the simple statement of a self-evident fact. ^'In his own image" is the further simple (and only possible satisfactory) explanation of man's superiority over the lower animals. The gradual shortening of the average span of human life argues a gradual physical degeneration of the human race ; and this, in turn, argues a per- fect physical type at the beginning. But in regard to the duration or process involved in the creation of this perfect physical type, the Creation account does not give the slightest clue on which to base any theory. It is only the twenty-four hour creation-day theory that limits the creation of Adam to within twenty-four hours. But if the theory is false, then THE BEGINKING OF TIME 69 just as we cannot definitely limit the creation of Adam to seconds, minutes, or hours, no more can we to days or years. However, all that is needful for us to know is recorded, and therefore the sixth day of creation, regardless of the duration involved, can only be re- garded — in view of the record — as Adam's birth day, just as if it were a twenty-four hour day, and the first time measured day as the first day of his life in a chronological sense, — a fact that Moses clearly recognized when he specified time, or *'the days that are past,'' ^^as since the day that God created man upon the earth." Both Creation accounts lack the marks of di- rect revelation, but bear the marks of inspired discernment. CHAPTER III. THE WEEKLY CYCLE AND THE PRIMITIVE SABBATH. The institution of the Sabbath would necessitate the counting of days and result in the weekly cycle, and this is practically the only explanation of the origin of the weekly cycle. Evidently there was no counting of days before there was any conscious need for counting. Hence the Sabbath, as the earliest conscious need for the counting of days, may be regarded, not only as the starting point of the weekly cycle, but also as the original occasion, and therefore the starting point of man-measured duration, or time. We have already given the Bible proofs that lead to the conclusion that God's original seven-day cycle began with the first day of creation and extends to the end of time. Some one may then say. How can the weekly cycle be a copy of God's model when the model is not yet completed 1 But the model is and ever has been com- pleted in the mind of God who established the week- ly cycle. Moreover, the fact of God's rest was established WEEKLY CYCLE AND PRIMITIVE SABBATH 71 on the first day of time on which. God rested, for God undoubtedly rested on the first day of time or man's first day in a chronological sense; hence the first day of time represents the fact of God's rest. The fact is the definite thing in God's sight; for duration in His sight has no definite time value, as shown by 2 Pet. 3 : 8 and Ps. 90 : 4. Then the fact of God's rest as established by the first day of time, completes the sense of the model, as a model to be copied. The fact of the finished Creation was established by the fact of God's rest, and the fact of God's rest was established by the first day of time, and there- fore the first day of time corresponds to God's rest day in so far as it established the fact. It is the only twenty-four hour day that does in any sense correspond to God's rest day, and is therefore the starting point of the weekly Sabbath in so far as God's rest day, in a twenty- four hour sense, is to be considered the true starting point. The fourth commandment says, ^^Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The reason given for it is, '^For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day. " It is clearly seen then that the week- ly cycle is modeled after God's original seven-day cycle. God's rest day is the seventh day in the model; and the copy must be a perfect imitation of the model. Therefore in the model sense, as rest from the preceding six days labor, the Sabbath is and always has been the seventh day of the week; but in the time sense it is and always has been (ex- 72 SABBATH THEOLOGY cept to the Jews during the Jewish dispensation) the first day of the week. (Even during the Jewish dispensation it was the first day of the week accord- ing to the Jewish calendar which had its begin- ing in Ex. 12 : 2 as will be shown in Chapter V.) The model week thus overlaps the time week so that the Sabbath is at one and the same time the seventh day of the one and the first day of the other. There is sufficient evidence to show that this arrangement was distinctly involved in God's plan. The Sabbath thus acquired at once a two-fold sig- nificance. As the seventh day of the model week it was memorial pointing backward: as the first day of the time week it was typical pointing forward. Backward to the completion of Creation : forward to the completion of the plan of Eedemption in the resurrection of Christ. Backward to God as the Creator and Judge: forward to God in Christ as the Redeemer and Savior. Backward to the power of God : forward to His love. Backward to justice : forward to hope. Backward to law: forward to grace. Backward to ^'Paradise Lost:'' forward to ^'Paradise Regained." The Sabbath cannot be a perfect institution if it fails to express all that it is capable of expressing, and only in its combined memorial and typical sense was the primitive Sabbath capable of the highest expression. Worship in the sense of confession of past sins, and of thanksgiving for past blessings, is t^^oified in the seventh dav of the week Sabbath: but in the sense of prayer for future guidance and blessing, it is typified in the first day of the week Sabbath. WEEKLY CYCLE AND PEIMITIVE SABBATH 73 Hence worship in its full sense is typified in the Sabbath as the seventh day of the model week and as the first day of the time week. Judgment in the sense of condemnation, or ^Hhe letter that killeth,'' is typified in the seventh day of the week Sabbath; but in the sense of promise and hope in forgiveness, or the ^^ spirit that giveth life," it is typified in the first day of the week Sabbath. Hence judgment in its full sense is typified in the Sabbath as the seventh day of the model week and as the first day of the time week. Christ was the ^^Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'' (Rev. 13 : 8). This shows that the plan of redemption was in the mind of God when He created the world. Then both the Creation and the Redemption were in His mind when He insti- tuted the Sabbath. The Redemption w^as the greater work if we may judge by the cost : for the Creation cost God, as it were, but the breath of His mouth (Ps. 33 : 6) ; but the sacrifice of His only begotten Son was the price of Redemption (John 3 : 16). ^^A greater power than was needed to create worlds is needed to re-create a lost soul, destroyed by sin." (A. C. Dixon). Our worship of God is based on the Redemption no less than on the Creation. Hence the Sabbath, as the God appointed means of worship in a time sense, relates to the Redemption no less than to the Creation, and should therefore point typically for- w^ard to the one as well as memorially backward to the other, until in the fulfilment of its typical sense it resolved itself into a double memorial. When Adam observed the Sabbath after his fall, 74 SABBATH THEOLOGY was he only reminded of the power of God as mani- fested in the Creation, and not also of God's pro- mise that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head" (Gen. 3 : 15)? It might be asked, Why was the creation reason the only reason appended to the fourth command- ment in Exodus 20 if any other reasons were in- volved? The evident answer is. Only the reason for the rest day sense of the Sabbath is given be- cause only the rest day sense of the Sabbath is in- volved in the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment does not command worship but only rest. Eelief from toil, however, makes the Sabbath the only suitable day for worship, and the worship instinct is implanted in man's nature, so that there can be no doubt that the Sabbath was meant to be a day of worship as well as a day of rest; but the worship day sense of the Sabbath is not expressed in the fourth commandment, which is sufficient rea- son why the worship day reasons are not appended. We may also notice that the fourth commandment calls forth only two questions : first, what right has God to demand a part of our time? Second, why should the week consist of seven days, instead of eight or some other number? The creation reason answers both of these questions: first, In the fact that God is the Creator of all things ; second. In the fact that the model consists of seven days or periods. God, who does nothing without a reason, only answered the questions necessarily involved in the command. WEEKLY CYCLE AND PKIMITIVE SABBATH 75 V The original Sabbatli was GocPs Sabbath and also man's first Sabbath. As God's Sabbath it was the seventh day of God's week. As man's Sabbath it was necessarily the first day of man's first week. Thus it was the seventh day in the model sense and the first day in the time sense, just as the Christian Sabbath is to-day. It cannot be a detriment to the copy to contain any feature found in the model. Again, the original Sabbath was the common ground on which time and eternity met, or the day through which the indefinite days of eternity changed into the definite days of time by reason of the Infinite mind adapting itself to the finite mind in beginning its dealings with man. This feature of the model is also recognized in the common bond relation which the Sabbath sustains to both the model week and the time week, as the last day of the one and the first day of the other. Again, the creation days were before man's days. This fact alone would make them stand out separate and distinct in thought from man's days, as if be- longing to a separate era, so that the first six days of the model week, from Adam's standpoint, be- longed to a preceding era from that of the seventh day. This feature of the model is fitly represented by the first six days of every week in the model sense belonging to the preceding week in the time sense. Thus we see that it is only the first day of the week Sabbath that fully meets all the requirements of the model. The only question to decide is, Does the SabbatH as the first day of the week in the time sense, make it any less the seventh day of the week in the model 76 SABBATH THEOLOGY sense as rest from six days labor? If it conforms to the model in fact, tlien no time division can de- stroy that fact; and the fact is the real thing in God's sight. The word ^'Sabbath'' means rest, and rest is from labor before, not from labor after, and hence, in the very nature of the case, the Sabbath is, in a rest day sense, the seventh day of the week because it is related in a rest day sense to the six days before, from which it is the resting; and this fact no time calendar can change. The Sunday Sabbath, as truly as the Saturday Sabbath, is rest from six days' labor, and is therefore the seventh day of the week in a Sabbath, or rest day sense, and is thus in ac- cord with the creation model on which the fourth commandment is based; and as rest from six days' labor it conforms to the sole condition stated in the fourth commandment. But in the face of the fact, Adventists deny the fact that the first day of the week Sabbath conforms to the condition of the model. They seem to forget that a fact is a fact, and that nothing in heaven or earth can change a fact that is a fact, and hence be- cause it is a fact, there is no fear but that God does recognize it as a fact. Adventists read into the fourth commandment con- ditions that are not there, just as if they had a com- mission from God to supply the conditions that He accidentally (?) omitted. What right have they to set chronological limitations to the simple command, **Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," when God Himself has set no such limitations WEEKLY CYCLE AND PKIMITIVE SABBATH 77 to it? ^'Whatsoever God does, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it" (Eccl. 3 : 14). Then what right have Adventists to add, as they practically do, the words ''of the Aveek" after "seventh day," making it read "sev- enth day of the week?" They charge the papal power with thinking to change God's times and law. They certainly lay themselves liable to the same charge. Adventists invariably apply the word Sabbath as if it were the specific Bible name of the seventh day of the week. That this is purely an assumption, without any Bible warrant, is shown in the simple fact that the Bible applies the word Sabbath also to certain annual days which Adventists themselves call annual Sabbaths, and also to certain years called Sabbatical years. Then the word Sabbath is not the specific Bible name of the seventh day of the week, for it is not exclusively applied to that day in the Bible. The day is always designated, where designated at all, outside of the word Sab- bath: therefore the word Sabbath does not in itself designate the day. These facts clearly show that the Bible uses the word Sabbath, not in a day locat- ing sense, but in a day defining sense. Therefore the word Sabbath in the fourth commandment de- fines the character of the day as a day of rest, for the word Sabbath simply means rest, and has in itself no day locating application. Sunday is the Sabbath to all those who observe it as a day of rest, in the true sense of the word Sab- bath, as truly as Saturday is the Sabbath to all those who observe it as a day of rest. ,78 SABBATH THEOLOGY If tlie Sabbatli law only specifies the Sabbath as a weekly day of rest, then, in the law sense, any weekly day of rest is truly ^Hhe Sabbath of the Lord'' to all those who observe it unto the Lord. The question as to what day of the first week of time was the first day of time on which God rested, is a question of historical record, and therefore to be decided, not by the fourth commandment, but by the historical record of the Bible. According to the Bible record (Gen. 1 : 27 to 2 : 2) God created man on the sixth day of creation and rested the seventh day. Then God rested on Adam's first day in a chronological (not birthday) sense. Again, ac- cording to the Bible record (Genesis 5 and Deut. 4 : 32) time, or the Bible chronology, began with the first time measured day of Adam. Then the inevitable conclusion is that the first day of the first week of time was the first day of time on which God rested and therefore represents the fact of God's rest in a time sense. If first things are God's we may well ask. Is the first of our time (represented by the first dixy of WEEKLY CYCLE AND PBIMITIVE SABBATH 79 the week) an exception! God claimed first things as His own: firstborn (Ex. 13 : 2) ; firstfruits of the harvest (Lev. 23 : 10); * ^ firstfruits of all thine in- crease'^ (Prov. 3 : 9). The heart that is in an acceptable attitude toward God will of its own accord offer Him the first and best. Thus Abel offered the firstlings of his flock and was accepted (Gen. 4:4). The Sabbath has in it the sense of a sacrifice or offering of one-seventh of our time to God. Has God less regard for the first of our time than for the first of our substance? God claims one-seventh of our time — Shall we offer Him the first seventh or the last seventh? No one questions that the Bible teaches that man's first duty is obedience to God, and that God 's claims stand first in all things, not omitting time. Christ said, *^Seek ye first the kingdom of God" (Matt. 6 : 33). Is the principle, here involved, in the first or in the last day of the week Sabbath? Thus it is, that every teaching of the Bible points to the first day of the week as the true Sabbath. A memorial is simply something to remind. A copy, or imitation, cannot fail to remind of the thing imitated, and is the most natural, direct, and ef- fective kind of memorial in that it carries its memorial meaning in itself. A fixed day memorial reminds by its being a regularly recurring day count from the event memorialized. The Sabbath as a, memorial involves both of these memorial principles combined. But as a memorial of Creation the former is the essential principle, while the latter is 80 SABBATH THEOLOGY tlie non-essential principle, as can be easily demon- strated by mentally eliminating one or the other and noting the effect. First, we will eliminate the former. Now imagine an every sixth, or eighth, or ninth day Sabbath, beginning with the day on which God rested. Notice that the fixed day principle remains, in that it is a regnlarly recurring count from God's rest day, but the imitation of the model principle (in the every seventh day count) only has been eliminated. We at once recognize that the creation memorial meaning of the Sabbath has been totally destroyed. We will now, on the other hand, eliminate the fixed day principle and imagine an every seventh day Sabbath not beginning with the day on which God rested. Notice that the imitation of the crea- tion model (in the every seventh day count) re- mains, but that the fixed day principle (in the reg- ularly recurring count from God's rest day) has been eliminated. The imitation, or copy of the creation model remains perfect and intact. It can- not fail to remind of the thing imitated, for it car- ries its memorial meaning in itself, and therefore its memorial meaning cannot be mistaken. And if it reminds us (as it cannot fail to do) of the Crea- tion and God's rest afterward, it has accomplished its memorial purpose. Therefore we recognize that the creation memorial meaning of the Sabbath has not been materially affected. 4 — 4=0. Here the simple fact that nothing re- mains shows that the whole numerical value of 4 has been subtracted from it. Now if we subtract the every seventh day element from the Sabbath, noth- WEEKLY CYCLE AND PEIMITIVE SABBATH 81 ing remains of its creation memorial meaning, which proves with mathematical accuracy that the whole of the creation memorial value of the Sabbath is in its every seventh day element. On the other hand, the simple fact that the fixed day element of the Sabbath, in itself (with the every seventh day element omitted), could not have the slightest creation memorial meaning, proves also (with mathematical accuracy) that the fixed day ele- ment has not the slightest creation memorial value. This, however, does not prove that the fixed day element of the Sabbath has no memorial value, but only that it has no creation memorial value. It could be a memorial of God's rest day after the Creation, but no more than it would be if it were an every eighth, instead on an every seventh, day count from that event. While the fixed day element may be a memorial of God's rest day, it stops right there. But the every seventh day element is a memorial of God's rest day in its relation to the Creation; and it is only in its relation to the Creation that it has any place in the creation memorial meaning of the Sabbath. Hence the fixed day element of the Sab- bath has absolutely no creation memorial value. Therefore, if God can use it, with or without chang- ing the day, to commemorate some other memorial event in His dealings with man, the result is clear gain. For since God made the Sabbath a means to an end, its value in His sight is in proportion to its efficiency as a means to an end. Adventists say that God cannot change the day of His rest any more than we can change our birthday, and therefore God Himself cannot change the day of 82 SABBATH THEOLOGY the Sabbath without creating the heavens and the earth over again in a different number of days. Of course this assertion is based on the twenty-four hour creation-day theory ; otherwise, their own argu- ment w^ould go to prove that the first day of the week was the unchangeable day of the Sabbath. We may accept the first part of the assertion at its full value, for God cannot change the relation of His rest to the six days of Creation; and the crea- tion reason will ever remain as the reason why the Sabbath is an every seventh day Sabbath instead of an every eighth day Sabbath (or some other number). In a time sense the first day of the week has al- ways been and always will be the weekly counter- part of the day of the first v/eek of time on which the fact of God's rest, in a birthday sense, w^as es- tablished; for God undoubtedly rested on the first day of the first week of time. That God never lost sight of this fact is evidenced in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on that day, — else why did God thus crown the first day above every other day of the week? Would God thus honor any other day above the seventh day of the week if that were the day en- titled to the highest honor? But to return to the assertion that God Himself cannot change the day of the Sabbath without creat- ing the heavens and the earth over again in a dif- ferent number of days. Adventists seem to think this is a clinching argument, instead of a transpar- ent absurdity as it really is. We cannot change our birthday, but that fact does not compel us to cele- brate it or prevent us from celebrating some other WEEKLY CYCLE AND PRIMITIVE SABBATH 83 day as the memorial of some other event. The Sab- bath is not God^s birthday, but simply a weekly day of rest appointed by Him to commemorate an event. Can any one deny that God has the power and right to suspend one appointment and appoint some other day as His Sabbath to commemorate some other event? And is it an impossible thing that He could thus make it a double memorial by reason of its two distinct memorial principles! — and, through its every seventh day principle commemorate His rest from Creation and through its fixed or birthday principle commemorate to the Israelites their rest from bondage? There are two copies of the ten commandments in the Bible (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). The first purports to be the copy as spoken by God in the hearing of the people (Ex. 20 : 1) : the second purports (as we shall show later) to be the copy as Avritten by God on tables of stone (Deut. 5 : 22). In the first, the creation reason (Ex. 20 : 11) is appended to the fourth commandment: in the sec- ond, the Exodus reason (Deut. 5 : 15) is appended to the fourth commandment. Both reasons there- fore stand in exactly the same relation to the fourth commandment. The only simple, direct, and satis- factory explanation of this fact is in the double memorial theory. Instead of Adventists keeping the day of the time week on which God first rested, as they fondly imag- ine, they are keeping the day fixed by the manna to commemorate to the Israelites their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and therefore only a Jew-^ ish ordinance. 84 SABBATH THEOLOGY Jews who reject Christ and deny the Resurrec- tion, still consistently keep the day appointed by the manna in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt, but Adventists have no such reason for keeping it, and are therefore Judaizers in the most inexcusable sense. However, they cannot be accused of keeping the Sabbath in any sense in which they do not mean to keep it, and they claim to keep it solely in commemoration of the Crea- tion. But its creation testimony is only in its every seventh day element. The Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath equally commemorate the Crea- tion in their every seventh day element ; but one com- morates the Exodus and the other the Resurrection in their fixed day element. Adventists gain nothing on the one hand, but on the other lose all of the Sabbath's Resurrection blessing. (This point will be further discussed later). The moral sense of the Sabbath is in its every seventh day element: the economic sense is in its fixed day element. It is a moral duty to consecrate a part of our time to God's work and our own spiritual welfare: it is an economic necessity that all should observe, so far as possible, the same day. The moral law deals only with moral questions. The economic element of the Sabbath, therefore, has no place in the moral law. The whole Sabbath dis- pute arises simply from attempting to read the economic element of the Sabbath into the fourth commandment of the moral law, where it does not belong. No law can be justly enforced beyond its strict WEEKLY CYCLE AND PRIMITIVE SABBATH 85 literal rendering; and no literal rendering of the fourth commandment can make it fix the day of the Sabbath, for it simply says, *^Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,'' and any day after six is the seventh. The trouble lies right here: people recognize the necessity of the economic element of the Sabbath and therefore assume that it must be included in the fourth commandment. But God is fully able to take care of the economic element outside of the moral law. God certainly did not underrate the importance of the economic element of the Sabbath. He fixed the day of the Sabbath at the beginning of time in the day on which He rested. He fixed it for the Israel- ites by the manna. And He fixed it for the Chris- tian world by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Notice that in each case God fixed the day of the Sabbath by means outside of the moral law, show- ing that the moral law, in itself, does not fix the day of the Sabbath ; else it would not have been nec- essary for God to ^x the day outside of the moral law. (This subject will be more fully discussed later). The theory that God's rest after Creation was the origin of the weekly Sabbath is the theory most commonly held by others as w^ell as Adventists. Still there are some who hold that there was no Sabbath till it was given to the Israelites by the manna. That the Sabbath began soon after the Creation is clearly implied, though the law was formally 86 SABBATH THEOLOGY given to the Israelites nearly 2,500 years later (ac- <3ording to Usher's Chronology). 1. If 'Hhe Sabbath was made for man," as Christ said, it is not likely that God withheld it from man for 2,500 years and then gave it only to the Israelites. 2. At the giving of the manna (Ex. 16 : 26-28) God's commandments and laws are referred to as if already existing and the Sabbath law was direct- ly involved in God's rebuke. Hence it must have been one of the already existing commandments, or laws of God. 3. The week is incidentally mentioned in Gen. 29 : 27, showing that it was then a well recognized division of time. 4. Noah was warned seven days before the be- ginning of the flood (Gen. 7:4), and twice he waited seven days before sending the dove forth from the ark (Gen. 8 : 10-12). This implies that the weekly cycle existed before the flood. 5. The existence of the weekly cycle presupposes the existence of the Sabbath ; for the Sabbath would necessitate the weekly cycle. 6. The Sabbath law begins with the word * 'Re- member," which implies the previous existence of the Sabbath. 7. The most reasonable inference is that the weekly cycle and the Sabbath existed as long as the reason therefor (creation model) existed, and hence from the day on which God rested and completed the creation model. 8. Gen. 2 : 3 says that God blessed and sancti- fied the day on which He rested, because He had rested on that day. The natural conclusion is that WEEKLY CYCLE AND PEIMITIVE SABBATH 87 He blessed it as soon as the reason for blessing it existed, or as soon as He had rested upon it, — not 2,500 years after at the giving of the Law on Sinai. 9. The most fitting memorial possible of the six creation days would, undoubtedly, be the dividing of all time into six-day work periods; and God would use nothing short of the most fitting memo- rial. And this memorial scheme would necessarily begin with the beginning of time, and the every seventh day of rest was the essential contrasting element necessary to thus divide time into six-day work periods. Nothing short of this great memorial scheme can satisfactorily explain the existence of the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation, and neces- sarily fixes its beginning at the beginning of time. 10. Further evidence of the primitive Sabbath is found in the testimony of sun-worship (see Chap- ter IV.) and in the testimony of the ancient calen- dars (see Chapter VL). Now if the Sabbath existed before the giving of the Law on Sinai, then it must have had a prior origin, and Gen. 2 : 3 is the only prior origin that can be found in the Bible. The weekly cycle was not an accident, so must have an origin. There is no such natural division of time, so it cannot have its origin in nature. The astronomical names given to the days of the week do not necessarily suggest its origin; for the names could have been given later. It is well established that the week is older than the names. It existed before there was any systematic knowledge of astronomy. La Place says, ^^The week is perhaps the most ancient and incontestable monument of 88 SABBATH THEOLOGY human knowledge.'' It is easy to see how the Sab- bath given by God to Adam at the beginning would lead to such a division of time. From these reasons we confidently conclude that God instituted the Sabbath at or near the beginning of time. Again, there are some who hold that the original weekly cycle, and with it the original day of the Sabbath have been lost. It is only reasonable to suppose that God is the preserver as w^ell as the originator of the weekly cycle. 1. If the dividing of all time into six-day periods, commemorative of Creation, was God's purpose in originating the weekly cycle, — as we are justified in concluding from the very perfection of the scheme as a memorial of Creation, — then God would also preserve the weekly cycle in the carrying out of the scheme. 2. •e. . . . o This diagram shows that the o Sabbath (o) may be changed from the first to the seventh day of the week, or vice versa without chang- ing the weekly cycle. But any other arrangement would cause a readjustment of the weekly cycle; for the Sabbath, as the contrasting or dividing ele- ment, must, if according to nature, be either the first or the last day of the week in order to define the limits of the week. Now if God had a definite purpose in changing the day of the Sabbath, by the manna, from the first to the seventh, instead of to some other day of the week, WEEKLY CYCLE AND PRIMITIVE SABBATH 89 it must have been to preserve the original weekly cycle, showing that the preservation of the weekly cycle was a part of God's original plan. (The change from the first to the seventh day involved the least possible change of the original order. But even this implies the temporary character of the change, — like a modulation in music.) 3. Adam, Lamech, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. This short, direct, unbroken line reaches from Adam to the sojourn in Egypt; during all of which time the day of the Sabbath would naturally become more and more fixed through the ever-in- creasing force of habit. The fact that this was the chosen line through which God preserved His precepts, one of which was the observance of the Sabbath, is in itself an assurance that the Sabbath was observed during all this timiC; and the ever-increasing force of habit is sufficient assurance that the day was not changed. Adam received the appointment of the day of the Sabbath direct from God, and we can safely assume that during the nine hundred and thirty years of his life, reaching down to the ninth generation, the day of the Sabbath was not changed. This would be suf- ficient time to cause the day to be regarded as fixed and unchangeable. Adam lived till Lamech was fifty-six years of age, and Lamech lived to within five years of the flood and till Noah was five hundred and ninety-five years of age. Between Adam and Noah there was but the break of one hundred and twenty-six years. Of Noah it was said, that he ''was a just man and perfect in his generation,'' and that he '^ walked with God" (Gen. 6 : 4), which is 90 SABBATH THEOLOGY sufficient assurance that he kept all of God's pre- cepts as handed down to him, including the Sabbath. Then it is practically certain that the day of the Sabbath was not changed before the flood. Noah and his family alone survived the flood; and the original day of the Sabbath stands with all the time honored precedence which its existence before the flood now gives to it. JSToah lived to the tenth generation after the flood, and till Abraham was fifty-eight years of age. Thus Noah's influence as the recognized patriarch of the age would insure the preservation of the original day of the Sabbath during his life. Of Abraham God said, he ^ ^ obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen. 26 : 5) ; and again He said, ^'I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment." (Gen. 18 : 19). Isaac, Jacob and Joseph obeyed God and wor- shiped Him, which practically insures the unbroken continuance of the Sabbath to the Egyptian bond- age. From the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses was about 64 years. (Compare marginal dates). The faithfulness with which the precepts of God were handed down from parent to child dur- ing the Egyptian bondage, is illustrated by the mother of Moses ; for, as the result of her teaching, Moses cast his lot with the Israelites and refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. The day of tlie Sabbath thus handed down, as un- doubtedly taught, in unbroken line from the Crea- tion would naturally be regarded as fixed and un- WEEKLY CYCLE AND PEIMITIVE SABBATH 91 cliangeable ; and nothing short of a providence bear- ing the unmistakable mark of God's authority — as was the giving of the manna — could have changed it. If the original day of the Sabbath was not changed before the Exodus, then evidently the original weekly cycle remained unchanged also. Viewed, in a general sense, from the standpoint of the ever-increasing force of habit when once formed, the original weekly cycle unchanged be- comes the normal and probable; and the reverse, the abnormal and improbable phase of the question. From which it would inevitably follow, that the for- mer would constitute the general rule, and the latter the exception all down the ages. The present weekly cycle, which exists practically over all the world, and from unknown antiquity, is certainly a practical test of the ever-increasing force of habit as a sure and reliable principle. And this principle which has proved itself from unknown an- tiquity is just as sure to hold true prior as since. Moreover, as we go back toward antiquity, and the numerous branches of the human race narrow down toward the one common head in Noah, the probability of any change in the weekly cycle nar- rows down in the same proportion. CHAPTER IV. SUISr WOKSHIP AND ORIGIN OF THE DAY NAMES. Sun-worsliip was "undoubtedly tTie oldest and the most nniversal form of idolatry. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers {Old Testament Student, January 1886) says, ^'The universality of this form of idolatry is something remarkable. It seems to have prevailed everywhere. ' ' An Adventist writer (Milton C. Wilcox — The Lord's Day, page 35), after quoting from a num- ber of authorities on the subject, says, *^In brief, sun-worship prevailed everywhere, and in some form or other permeated all heathen vv^orship.'' Again (page 88), after referring to the chapter on sun- worship, he says, ^'Evidence sufficient is there given to show that the worship of the sun is one of the oldest and most universal forms of idolatry, and that Sunday was the special day honored by the sun- worshipers. ' ' There must be a reason. Note first the univer- sality of this worship. Note second the uniformitjr SUN- WOESHIP 93 of tile day of sun-worship among these different na- tions. These two facts put together prove con- clusively that sun-worship among these different nations had a common origin; and that common origin could only have been the original worship of God: for try as we may, it is absolutely impos- sible otherwise to satisfactorily account for the uni- versality of sun-worship and the uniformity of the day among all the widely separated peoples of the earth. Sun-worship, in its very nature, was the most natural perversion possible of the original worship of God; and because it w^as the most natural, it was the most insidious and dangerous. To most effect- ively accomplish his purpose, Satan would assuredly make use of the most natural means. God is invisible, and therefore man, in his in- ability to comprehend the invisible, sought some visible object through which to worship God; and he could not fail to adopt the most suitable object in nature for that purpose. This perversion of the worship of God would naturally be gradual. Then at what point was the original day of the Sabbath changed, if it was changed? Sun-worshipers would evidently hold to the ori- ginal day of the Sabbath just as tenaciously as did the true worshipers of God. Both, undoubtedly, re- garded it as fixed and unchangeable because handed down from before the flood. And as sun-worshipers were also descendants of Noah, they must also have held the same traditions regarding the origin of the Sabbath as did the Hebrew branch of the race. At the beginning of sun-worship, no doubt many 94 SABBATH THEOLOGY good men regarded it as a legitimate modification of the worship of God, and as an almost necessary ex- pedient. In view of man's inability to comprehend the invisible, it was doubtless thought to be a very practical and effective expedient to represent God by the most suitable visible object, and worship Him through the medium of that visible object. Satan no doubt presented reasons as plausible as he did to Eve, but he was certainly too shrewd to suggest changing the original day of the Sabbath. Nor would it be to his interest to do so, for he could ac- complish his purpose more effectively by pervert- ing the day that God appointed than by setting up a rival institution. It is evident, therefore, that just as sun-worship was a perversion of the original worship of God so the day of sun-worship was but the perverted day of the original Sabbath. Only in the fact that the day of sun-worship was universally regarded as a fixed unchangeable every seventh day from the beginning of time is it possible to account for the absolute uniformity of the day of sun-worship throughout the world. Just so sure- ly therefore as the original day of the Sabbath was handed down through the true worship of God, so surely also was it handed down through sun-wor- ship ; for the same conditions worked just as surely to the same end in one case as in the other. The very name *^ Sunday" is a standing witness that it was the day of Sun-worship, and therefore the original day of the Sabbath perverted. This becomes practically certain when we consider for a moment that the ever increasing force of habit would only make the day of the Sabbath more and SUN WORSHIP 95 more fixed as time went on, and that people would soon come to regard the day of the Sabbath as fixed and unchangeable, just as Adventists do now. Naturally, during their bondage in Egypt, many of the Israelites yielded to the influence of sun-wor- ship and evidently God could best remove the influ- ence of sun-w^orship by changing the day of the Sab- bath; and only thus could the Sabbath be made a peculiar sign between God and the Israelites (Ex. 31 : 13,17 ; Ezek. 20 : 12-20). But while God temporarily abandoned the day of the original Sabbath to sun-worship, it was only to re-establish it all the more gloriously in the Resur- rection of His own Son, who is the ^^Sun (S-u-n) of Eigliteousness'' (Mai. 4 : 2) and the ^^Light of the world'' (John 1 : 7,9; 8 : 12). ^' Arise shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.'' (Isa. 60 ; 1,3.) What is the light of the physical world but the Sunf What more appropriate day than Sunday to worship Jesus Christ, the ^^Sun of Eighteousness, " the worship of whom, as the true antitype of the sun, should supplant the worship of the sun. Where is pagan sun-worship to-day? Thus the Resurrection Sabbath with its Resur- rection Gospel has accomplished that which the Saturday Sabbath, with its exodus testimony and Jewish limitations, utterly failed to accomplish. No 96 f SABBATH THEOLOGY** wonder that Satan is using every possible means to' cast discredit on the Resurrection Sabbath. Satan's attempts to thwart the plans of God may seem to prosper for awhile, but his temporary suc- cess only makes his final overthrow all the more complete to the giory of God. ^'0 Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cast down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God I will be like the most High.'' (Isa. 14 : 12-14). Permanent abandonment of the original day of the Sabbath would have meant surrender to Satan of God's rightful claim. Adventists try hard to associate pagan sun-worship with the Christian Sabbath. Do Christians worship the sun on Sunday any more than Adventists worship Saturn on Sat- urday! Pagan writers ignorantly attributed the origin of the Jewish Sabbath to the worship of Saturn, just as Adventist writers to-day attribute the origin of the Christian Sabbath to the worship of the sun. That Christians worship on Sunday purely in commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact too well known for Adventists to plead ignorance ; and when they assert that the Christian Sunday Sabbath has its origin in sun-worship, they assert that which they cannot fail to know is not true. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion. They surely know that they cannot change a fact by deny- ing it, and that the fact is the real thing in God's sight. And if a fact is a fact, there is no fear but that God will recognize it as a fact. SUN" WORSHIP 97 ORIGIN" OF THE DAY NAMES. The naming of the days is generally credited either to the ancient Egyptians or to the Babylon- ians, who, several centuries before the Exodus, named the days after the sun, moon, and five then known planets, beginning with the farthest and tak- ing them in the order of distance, — thus Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, — then supposing each in rotation to rule over one hour (the day being divided into twenty-for hours), they named each day after the one that ruled over its first hour; thus, Saturday (Saturn's day), Sunday (Sun's day), Monday (Moon's day), Tuesday (Tiw's OT Mar's day), Wednesday '(Woden's or Mercury's day), Thursday (Thor's or Jupiter's day), Friday (Freia's or Venus' day). The last four being later derived from the deities that were sup- posed to rule over the corresponding planets. It will be seen that Saturday is the first in the list as thus derived. This is doubtless the origin of the statements by Dio Casius and Diodorus Siculus, that Saturday was the first day of the Egyptian week. It is evident, however, that the order of rotation would not be affected by beginning the week with Sunday, or any other day, instead of Saturday. Thus the derivation of the names did not necessarily ^Ji the beginning of the week, but only the order of rotation, and therefore did not necessarily involve any change in the original weekly cycle, in which, undoubtedly, the day of sun-worship was the first day of the week. The names were necessarily first derived and afterward applied, and the application, 93 SABBATH THEOLOGY rather than the derivation, would determine the be- ' ginning of the week. A starting point was necessary in applying the names, and the natural application of the name Sun's day to the day of sun-worship, which was already an established day, was the only practical starting point. Also, the sun is so far superior in rank to the planets that it could not fail to be re- garded as first in every real sense. Also, the day of sun-worship was doubtless handed down by tra- dition as the first day of time. If these considera- tions had their due weight, as there is no reason to doubt, they could not fail to rank Sunday as the first day of the week as handed down to the present day. The most natural and reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that Sunday was the first and Saturday the seventh day of the universally recognized week at the time of the Exodus. Adventists agree with us on this point, and certain it is, that there is no conclusive proof to the contrary. CHAPTER V. THE JEWISH CALENDAR. It is claimed that for many centuries the Jew- ish calendar has been lost. Hence the different theories in regard to it. The Jewish Sabbath, how- ever, furnishes very important evidence in the case. If God withheld the manna on every seventh day for forty years, that unquestionably made the Jew- ish Sabbath a fixed day of the week. *'Six days ye shall gather it but on the seventh day there shall be none.'' (Ex. 16 : 26). This is the rule or law of the manna on the authority of the Bible. ^'And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years." (Ex. 16 : 35). Now in the absence of the slightest trace in the Bible of any change in the law of the manna, or that there was any exception to it, we have no right to assume that there was only on the most absolute proof; and since there is no proof to the contrary, we must conclude that the Jewish Sabbath w^as a fixed day of the week. There are certain texts that seem to make the Jewish Sabbaths also fixed days of the year. 100 SABBATH THEOLOGY The fifteenth day of the first month was always the Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23 : 5-7), or yearly memorial of the Exodus. Pentecost Vv^as the yearly memorial of the giving of the Law fifty days after the Exodus, and must therefore always be fifty days after the Passover Sabbath: otherwise it has no memorial significance. *^And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete; even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days" (Lev. 23 : 15, 16). That this count is from the Passover Sab- bath (though not actually so stated) is generally admitted; for the connection and the memorial sig- nificance (of the fifty days) make the inference too plain to be avoided. The count to Pentecost ^'from the morrow after the (Passover) Sabbath,'' and from the putting of ^^the sickle to the corn'' (Deut. 16 : 9) involves no contradiction when we consider the regularity of the seasons, due to the peculiar situation of Palestine, and the fact, also, that the beginning of the harvest may be delayed or hastened a few days without seri- ous detriment. Notice that the fifty day count to Pentecost begins with the morrow after the Passover Sabbath and ends with the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, so that the seventh Sabbath was the forty-ninth day of the count, which puts all the seven Sabbaths in direct line with the Passover Sabbath. Now these seven Sabbaths between the Passover Sabbath and Pentecost are thus designated as Sabbaths; but as THE JEWISH CALENDAR 101 they are not designated, even in any implied sense, as special Sabbaths, we naturally conclude that they were regular weekly Sabbaths; but the Pass- over Sabbath was a fixed day of the year ; hence the weekly Sabbaths would also be fixed days of the year. Beginning with the Passover Sabbath (15th day of the first month), we have here eight consecutive Sabbaths which are fixed days of the year, since the Passover Sabbath is a fixed day of the year. If these were also the regular weekly Sabbaths, then — counting backward from the 15th — the 8th and the 1st would also be Sabbaths, making ten consecutive weekly Sabbaths, from the beginning of the year, as fixed days of the year. '^And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month he set the bread in order upon it before the Lord, as the Lord had commanded Moses'' (Ex. 40 : 17,23). The Lord commanded Moses that the shew-bread should be set in order ^' every Sabbath" (Lev. 24 : 8). *^ Every Sabbath'' evidently means the weekly Sab- baths, so then the first day of the first month of the second year was a weekly Sabbath, and hence the 8th was also the Sabbath; and the next (the 15th) was the Passover Sabbath followed by seven Sab- baths. We have now ten consecutive weekly Sab- baths, beginning with the first day of the second year. As this is the second year, and the Sab- baths are still in direct line with the eight fixed year- day Sabbaths from Passover Sabbath to Pentecost, and hence also with the original memorial dates of the Exodus and the giving of the Law, we have 102 SABBATH THEOLOGY every reason to believe it was tlie fixed yearly order, and continued througliout the year. Morever, on Abib lOth, in all the households of Israel, the paschal lamb was selected and separated from their flocks (Ex. 12 : 3). On Abib 14th the pas- chal lamb was slain (verse 6), and other prepara- tions made for the Passover. And on the 16th was the beginning of the harvest in which the first sheaf of ripe grain was waved before the Lord (Lev. 23 : 15 and Deut. 16 : 9). All this involved labor which was strictly contrary to the Sabbath law, and bence these three days could never be Sabbaths. But as fixed days of the year, they would periodi- cally fall on the weekly Sabbath unless the weekly Sabbaths were also fixed days of the year, which furnishes another evidence that the weekly Sabbaths were fixed days of the year. It would seem therefore that the Jewish Sabbaths were both fixed days of the week and fixed days of the year, which would make it necessary to adjust the year to these two fixed conditions by making the year an exact number of weeks (364 days). The Egyptian month Ahih was the first month of the Jewish year (see Ex. 12 : 2; 13 : 4; Deut. 16 : 1). This month began about the vernal equinox. Now since the Jewish year (as already inferred) began Avith a Sabbath, we may reasonably conclude that it began with the Sabbath nearest the vernal equinox. The Jewish year of 364 days would thus fall short one day in common years and two days in leap years, making it necessary to add a week every five or six years according to the following cycle, — six years, six years, five years, six years, five years. This THE JEWISH CALENDAR 103 would only involve the simple expedient of adding a week whenever the year fell more than three days (or half a week) short of the vernal equinox, in order to begin with the nearest Sabbath before or after. This would emphasize the Sabbath as the determining element of the Jewish calendar, and would harmonize with the prominence of the Sab- bath in the Jewish ritual. The flood lasted from the 17th day of the second month (Gen. 7 : 11) to the 17th day of the seventh month (Gen. 8 : 4), or one hundred and fifty days (Gen. 7 : 24). Thus we have five months equal 150 days, or one month equal 30 days. In Rev. 10 : 2,3, also 12 : 6 and 13 : 5, we have forty-two months equal 1,260 days, or one month equal 30 days. Thus we have the thirty day month in the first and the last books of the Bible, and hence all the way through. This practically determines the measure of the month in the Jewish calendar. The lunar theory is evidently based on the **new moon'^ offerings in 1 Cliron. 23 : 31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8 :13;31 :3;Neh.lO :33;Ezek.45 :17;Hos. 2 :11; Col. 2 : 16. But the word here translated '^moon" is the same word that is elsewhere translated *' month.'' Furthermore, the *^new moon" offer- ings point directly back to their origin in the com- mand in Num. 28 : 11, — ^^And in the beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the Lord." God would not likely give a command that would have a tendency to lead to moon-wor- ship. Hence it is purely assumption that these of- ferings were on the new moons. 104 SABBATH THEOLOGY Most nations had a year of twelve months of thirty days each, or 360 days ; but the solar year is 365 days and a fraction of a day. Some nations made up the shortage by adding a month every six years. In the ancient Egyptian calendar, to which the Jewish calendar was most nearly related, '^The month consisted of thirty days invariably; and in order to complete the year, ^ve days w^ere added at the end, called supplementary days" {Encyclopedia Brittannica, Vol. IV, page 665). The Jewish calen- dar of 364 days, or 52 even weeks would thus be very similar to the Egyptian calendar (from w^hich it was derived), but would contain four instead of ^ve supplementary days in ordinary years, and would require an intercalary week whenever the deficiency amounted to a week. It is evidently impossible to construct a perfect calendar from the solar year of 365 days and a frac- tion of a day that would require no periodic cor- rection ; and hence all calendars are subject to peri- odic correction. It will be seen that the above Jewish calendar is the only possible calendar that can be constructed under the two conditions, — that the Jewish Sabbaths were on a fixed day of the week and on fixed days of the year. Therefore, if these tw^o conditions are both true, the calendar must be true. It wdll be seen, also, that this calendar is made up entirely of weeks. Now the week is the only directly God appointed division of time, and it would seem only fitting that God w^ould construct the Bible cal- endar upon the w^eek as a foundation. It has been claimed that God would not write a THE JEWISH CALENDAR 105 year of 365 days and a fraction of a day in the book of nature and a different year in the Bible. But it is impossible to write the fraction of a day into any calendar outside of the book of nature, and hence the Bible calendar cannot be exactly true to nature; and if not exactly true, then the whole force of the argument is destroyed. God very defi- nitely wrote the weekly cycle into the Bible, and made it the first and most prominent division of the Bible calendar. Three hundred and sixty-five days is the nearest approach to nature's year, but it is not a multiple of the weekly cycle; therefore the Bible year cannot coincide with both. There is reason to believe that the Jewish year was divided into two equal parts. In Levidicus 23, only the first and seventh months are named, thus giving these months each the sense of a new begin- ning of months, dividing the year into two distinct parts. Because of the relation of seed time and harvest, the seventh and fiftieth year rests or Sabbaths to the land — and hence the counting of years with reference thereto — began with the seventh month (Lev. 25 : 2-9). Every fiftieth year was also a year of jubilee, in which all debts were cancelled, every man returned unto his possession, and slaves were set at liberty. Hence all civil contracts, thus in- volved, were made with reference to the year of jubilee (verses 10-16) which bgan with the seventh month. Therefore the Jewish year in a civil sense began with the seventh month, or autumnal equinox, while in a religious sense it began with the vernal equinox. 106 SABBATH THEOLOGY Adding two days at the end of each half of the year would consume the four supplementary days belonging to the year, and each half would be G X 30 + 2 = 182 days, or 26 even weeks, and thus the year would be divided into two exactly equal parts, each whole and complete in itself as a dis- tinct division of time. We found that the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, etc., days of the first month were weekly Sabbaths. Hence the same days of the seventh month would be weekly Sabbaths. In Lev. 23 : 23-36 we find that the 1st, 10th, 15th, and 22nd days of the seventh month were Sabbaths. If the 1st, 15th and 22nd were weekly Sabbaths, then the 8th would be also. The 10th was the day of Atonement in which the Israelites were to afflict their souls (verse 27), and was thus contrary to the spirit of the weekly Sabbath, which would account for it not being a weekly Sabbath. If the 15th and 22nd were not weekly Sabbaths, then the weekly Sabbath was between them; but verses 35 and 36 imply that the 15tli and 22nd were the only Sabbaths involved in the Feast of Taber- nacles. This fact, together Avith the fact that the 1st, 15th, and 22nd were in the same seven-day cycle, and were in harmony with the spirit of the weekly Sabbaths, is strong presumptive evidence that they were weekly Sabbaths; which, if true, proves the correctness of the above division of the two halves of the year. The intercalary week added every five or six vears could be added to the end of either half of the year, without affecting the special Sabbaths of the year. THE JEWISH CALENDAK 107 The annual special Sabbaths were *^Each on its own day; besides the Sabbaths of Jehovah" (Lev, 23 : 37,38, K. V.). We here give Adventists advantage of the doubt, and assume that the word ^'each'' refers to the an- nual Sabbaths instead of to the offerings immediate- ly preceding it. Adventists argue that the word ** besides" proves that the annual Sabbaths were in no case weekly Sabbaths. This is true, so far as the annual sense is ^'besides" the weekly sense. Ad- ventists admit that the annual Sabbaths must occa- sionally fall on the weekly Sabbath, then they must interpret the word ^^ besides" so that it will not con- tradict itself when this is the case. And thus it can only mean that the annual Sabbaths were separate and distinct in God's plan from the weekly Sab- baths, even though both, in certain cases or at cer- tain times, fell on the same day; in which case, that Sabbath became ^^an high day" (John 19 : 31), above other weekly Sabbaths, because of the com- bined annual and weekly sense. The theory of the *^two days as one Sabbath at Pentecost" is based: firsts on the assumption that the Bible year was 365 days; and second, on the proofs (which we have already given) that the Jew- ish Sabbaths were fixed days of the year. The two days Sabbath involves an eight day week, and thus supplies the additional day needed to fill out the 365 days of the common year. But leap years would require two eight day weeks or one nine day week; but as no possible excuse can be found for two eight day weeks, or one nine day week, and as the Sabbaths must remain fixed days of the year, 108 SABBATH THEOLOGY it becomes necessary to add one week every twenty- eight years, — thus acknowledging the principle of correcting the calendar by the addition of a week. Now, if it is admissible to add a week in every twenty-eight years, it is just as admissible to add it every &ve or six years, for the principle is the same. ^^Eemember the Sabbath day/' ^'The seventh day is the Sabbath.'' The two days Sabbath could not be called ^^the seventh day." The day is therefore the measure of the Sabbath institution according to the Sabbath law. If the word day in the Sabbath law may, in any possible case, mean more than twen- ty-four hours, then the word day in the Sabbath law has no definite time value; but if the word day in the Sabbath law has no definite time value, then the Sabbath is not a definite institution in that it has no definite measure. This is simply an axiom or self- evident truth. ^ ' Six days shalt thou labor but the seventh day is the Sabbath." Then the week of the Sabbath law is a week of seven days, and therefore a week of eight days would be contrary to the Sabbath law. Would God, who instituted the weekly cycle, contra- dict his own original purpose in it by changing it every year! The theory is very insistent on the literal render- ing of the Sabbath law in regard to six work days following the Sabbath, for it insists that according to the Sabbath law six work days must follow the Pentecost Sabbath; thus vvhile insisting on the lit- eral rendering at one point, it totally ignores the literal rendering at two very vital points. It is argued that there cannot be two rests with no work between, and sabbath means rest, and there- THE JEWISH CALENDAR 109 fore there cannot be two Sabbaths with no work day between; and as the Pentecost Sabbath was the mor- row after the seventh Sabbath, these two Sabbaths must be one Sabbath two days long. Pentecost is nowhere in the Bible called a Sab- bath. Its Sabbath sense is only in the command, *^Ye shall do no servile work therein.'^ It is thus a Sabbath only in the sense that rest is the antithe- sis of labor. Calling it a Sabbath is therefore a recognition of this sense of the word; and, in this sense of the word, it is Avholly independent of the preceding Sabbath. Pentecost has its appointment in a separate and distinct command, which fact alone necessarily makes it separate and distinct from any other day. The two Sabbaths are each based on a separate and distinct comm^and, and each commemorates a separate and distinct event. They are thus separate and distinct in every essential particular, and there- fore there is no warrant for regarding them to- gether as one Sabbath. Moreover, we find two Sabbaths together on the 6th and 7th days (or 7th and 8th, counting inclu- sively) after the Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23 : 6-8), — counting the Passover Sabbath as always on a weekly Sabbath (which fact is also an essential part of the theory in question). Here, however, the spe- cial Sabbath is before the v/eekly Sabbath, and hence the cessation from work began one day before the weekly Sabbath, then, according to the cessation rest sense argument, the weekly Sabbath began one day before its regular time. If we recognize the double day sense of the Sabbath in one place, we 110 SABBATH THEOLOGY must recognize it also in the other ; but here we can not recognize it, — for we would have two weekly Sabbaths with only five work days between, contrary to the Sabbath law, — ^then neither can it be recog- nized in the other place. Again, it is argued that the commandment says, *^Six days shalt thou labor,'' and therefore six work days must follow the Pentecost Sabbath. To recog- nize any exceptions to this commandment is to destroy the argument, for Pentecost is just as liable to be an exception as any other case. The less than six days between the Passover Sabbath and the Sab- bath following, and between the Atonement Sabbath and the Sabbaths on either side, are exceptions which cannot be disputed. The necessary conclu- sion is that the command, ^^Six days shalt thou labor, ' ' must be interpreted to mean, * ^ Six days may work be done" (Ex. 31 : 15, A. V.) ; and this is the universally applied sense. Another argument consists in an attempt to draw a parallel between the two Sabbath days at Pente- cost and the two Sabbath years at the end of each fifty year cycle. Pentecost was not an every fiftieth day in regular rotation, as the year of Jubilee was an every fiftieth year. Thus the parallel fails in a very important sense at the start. Now if the parallel is not com- plete, no conclusive argument can be drav/n from it ; for then it is impossible to judge with certainty wherein the parallel does or does not hold. The fact that the fifty year count was a repeating time measure, or cycle, made it necessary that each count begin with the year following the preceding THE JEWISH CALENDAR 111 count ; and the weeks of years necessarily conformed to the fifty year cycle because of their fixed relation to it. This time measuring repetition element, in the fifty year cycle, is of itself a sufficient reason why each fifty year count began with the year after the two Sabbath years at the end of the preceding count. Now there can be no parallel argument here in regard to the fifty day count to Pentecost unless a parallel reason is involved. But the fifty day count to Pentecost was not a repeating time measure, or cycle. It only occurred once in each year, and at a fixed place in the year, which it could not if it were a self -repeating cycle, and hence there was no mo- tive or reason for beginning a new count at the end of it. Thus the parallel breaks down at the exact point where the whole argument depends. In the first case, the continuous time measuring element was in the fifty year cycle, not in the seven year cycle. In the second case, the continuous time measuring ele- ment was in the weekly cycle, and not in the fifty day count to Pentecost. The Jubilee year, in its proclamation of ^ liberty throughout the land" (Lev. 25 : 10), was a semi- centenary memorial of the deliverance from Egyp- tian bondage. Pentecost was a yearly memorial of the giving of the Law. Thus there is no parallel here in a memorial sense. All of this shows that the two institutions had no intended parallel rela- tion to each other. We now come to the main argument. That the giv-i ing of the Law on Sinai occupied the whole ot Sun- 112 SABBATH THEOLOGY day (following the Sabbath) and in that law was the command, **six days shalt thou labor ;^' and as the people did not work on that Sunday, the law necessarily went into effect the next day, which would make the next Sabbath fall on the next Sun- day, thus advancing the weekly cycle one day — and likewise every year — in the memorial of the giving of the Law at Pentecost. The Sabbath law was based on the creation model. It also definitely fixed the day as the measure of the Sabbath institution. Hence the two days as one Sabbath, involving an eight day week, contradicts the Sabbath law at two vital points. It is a poor argument that totally ignors two vital points in order to sustain a wholly unnecessary application of another point. The argument also denies the purely moral char- acter of the Sabbath law by giving it (just as Ad- ventists do) a partially economic sense, as if, in itself, it in any sense fixed the day of the Sabbath. In this respect the theory is no better than the Adventists' theory. The day of the Sabbath was fixed by the manna several weeks before the giving of the Law, and the Israelites would necessarily understand the Sab- bath law by the manna interpretation of it. And there is not the slightest warrant for supposing that the day of withholding the manna was changed after the giving of the Law. The day on which the Law was given could be one of the six week days in the same sense that certain annual sabbaths were. The sole aim of the theory seems to be to make the Jewish Sabbath fall on different days of the THE JEWISH CALEITDAR 113 week in successive years, tliinking tlius to destroy the Adventists fixed seventh day of the week theory. If the Jewish calendar w^ere so very unique, is it not very remarkable that there is not the slightest trace of it anywhere in the Jewish records! The more unique a thing is the more likely it is to leave some trace of itself. The Christian Sabbath has always been a fixed day of the week. Now if, at the beginning of the Christian era, the Jewish Sabbath was not a fixed day of the week, then the two Sabbaths would periodically (continuing for a year) come on the same day. The Jewish Christians kept both Sab- baths. But they could not w^orship as Jews and as Christians at the same time and place. As Jews, they must go to the synagogue and go through the ritual of the Jewish worship, which probably oc- cupied almost all of the available part of the day. As Christians, they must meet elsewhere for wor- ship, for as a rule they were forbidden the syna- gogue to worship in. Often they had to meet in secret. This would necessarily involve very serious confusion, since this condition would continue each time for a year; but there is not the slightest hint of any such confusion, either in the Bible, or in the early Christian writings, which is very remarkable if such confusion existed. Again, according to the theory in question, the Jewish Sabbath still remained the seventh day of the week in the Jewish calendar. Thus, in the Jew- ish calendar, the weekly cycle (as a whole) was ad- vanced (by the measure of a day) once every year. This would make the Jewish calendar very distinct 114 SABBATH THEOLOGY and peculiar from all other calendars. During the New Testament times the Jews were subject to the Roman calendar in all civil matters. Now would this involve no confusion, considering that six- sevenths of the time the count of the days of the week would be entirely different in the two calen- dars? And is it possible that such confusion existed and no trace of it found in all the records of history! If the theory in question is untrue, then, like all other errors it can only do harm by obstructing the truth. If the Sunday Sabbath is the true Sabbath, it does not rest on any false foundation, and can receive no true support from any false theory. If the proofs given that the Jewish weekly Sab- baths were fixed days of the year are conclusive, as we think can scarcely be questioned, and if the with- holding of the manna on every seventh day for forty years is proof conclusive that the Jewish week- ly Sabbath was a fixed day of the week, then we have two positive conditions which together posi- tively determine the Jewish year to be three hund- red and sixty-four days, or fifty-two even weeks, with the addition of a week whenever the shortage amounted to a week. At the beginning of a new calendar the time divi- sions must begin together, and since in this case the weekly cycle is an exact measure of the year, the years and weeks will start even at the beginning of each year. The Jewish calendar, as distinct from others, be- gan with the month Abib (Ex. 12 :' 2; 13 : 4; Deut. 16 : 1) of the year of the Exodus. And since in THE JEWISH CALENDAR 115 this new calendar the time divisions (years, months, weeks) must start together, and the Jewish Sab- baths are on the 1st, 8th, 15th, etc., of each year, it follows that the Jewish Sabbath was on the first, not the seventh, day of the week in the Jewish calendar. But yet it was the seventh day of the week counting from the beginning of the manna, which was given six days and withheld the seventh, after the pattern of the creation model, for forty years. And thus it was, that even the Jewish Sab- bath was the first day of the week in a time sense and the seventh day of the week in a model sense, just as the primitive Sabbath was, and as the Chris- tian Sabbath is to-day. But, evidently, the model sense prevailed over the time sense, by reason of the forty years manna, till the time sense was en- tirely lost sight of; and thus the Jewish Sabbath has been handed down to the present time as the seventh day of the week, while in reality it was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar. In Ex. 12 : 2, God definitely determined the be- ginning of the Jewish calendar. This new begin- nig in itself, aside from any other consideration, made the Jewish calendar distinct from the Egyp- tian calendar, and hence a new calendar; and as a new calendar, it involved a new beginning of weeks, and God, by the manna, made the Jewish Sabbath the first day of the week of this new calendar. There are two definite proofs in this fact: First, That God changed the day of the Sabbath by the manna. For if God had timed the Exodus one year later (which He could as easily have done), then Sunday instead of Saturday (the rotary effect 116 SABBATH THEOLOGY of the Egyptian 365 day year) would have been the beginning of the Jewish calendar, and Saturday would have been the seventh day of the week, and thus its relation to the week would not have been changed. Now if the day of the Sabbath could not be changed, and must be the seventh day of the week, then God would certainly have timed the Ex- odus so that it would have been the seventh day of the week in the Jewish calendar. But God had a definite purpose in the timing, since He has a pur- pose in all that He does. Second, That the original Sabbath was the first day of the week. For no reason can be given w^hy it was made the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar except as the reaffirmation of its typical meaning, as the giving of the manna was the re- affirmation of its memorial meaning. A modula- tion in music is a fitting illustration of how chang- ing the day of the Sabbath involved changing with it the entire calendar as its proper accompaniment, and also a fitting illustration of the tempory char- acter of the change. The Israelites were accustomed to regard Satur- day as the seventh day of the week in the Egyp- tian calendar, and it was only natural that they would continue to so regard it, and this fact, togeth- er with the forty years manna, fully accounts for the Jewish Sabbath being handed down as the seventh day of the week, and so regarded by the New Testa- ment writers. But this does not alter the fact that it was the first day of the week in the original Jew- ish calendar, and that God had a definite purpose in the fact. THE JEWISH CALENDAR 117 We must also keep in mind that while the Jewish Sabbath was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar, it was still the seventh day of the week in the original weekly cycle, w^hich, as we believe, reaches from the beginning to the end of time, and that the change in the calendar, as the proper accom- paniment to the change in the day of the Sabbath, was but a temporary modulation in God's original plan, and can only mean that the Sabbath was origi- nally on the first day of the week. The only possible position that Adventists can here take is either to deny that Ex. 12 : 2 (though it made the Jewish calendar separate and distinct from all others) was the beginning of the Jewish calendar. Or else that, while it was the beginning of a new calendar, it did not involve a new begin- ning of weeks; which is to deny the self-evident principle, that at the beginning of a new calendar all time divisions necessarily begin together. CHAPTER VL SABBATH TESTIMONY OP THE ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES. It is evident that the weekly Sabbath given to man at the beginning of time would necessitate the weekly cycle, and that so long as the weekly Sabbath continued in unbroken succession the original week- ly cycle was not lost. In the fact that the dividing of all time into six day periods by an every seventh day of rest, is the most fitting memorial possible of the six days of Creation, and the only sufficient explanation of the Sabbath's memorial sense, and in the assumption that God would use only the most fitting memorial, we have the proof that the Sabbath and the weekly cycle were ordained by God at the beginning of time and necessarily preserved in the carrying out of His memorial scheme. It does not follow, however, that the weekly cycle was never changed in a local sense, for man has *^ sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7 : 29). It is i^NCIENT CALEN-DAES AND LANGUAGES 119 claimed that the ancient Persians, Homans, and peo- ple of old Calabar had an eight day week and that the Egyptians at one time had a ten day week. Even at a quite recent date France adopted a week of ten days. The fact that the seven day week can be traced back through the many lines of historical record to time immemorial and still remains to the present day, while all attempts to change it have failed, only strengthens the Bible account of its origin and con- firms the truth of God's great time memorial scheme. It is evident that God's purpose in the Sabbath was not only that it should be a day of rest and a memorial of Creation, but also that it should be a day of worship. Its memorial and rest day sense was in its seventh day of the week count; and its worship sense, as a sacrifice or offering of time, was in its first day of the week count, for God claims first things as His due, and the first day of the week represents the first of time. Worship at first was through sacrifices as types of the great promised sacrifice in Christ. Abel clearly recognized the principle that first things rightly belonged to God, in offering the firstlings of his flock (Gen. 4:4). It is not said that Cain brought of the firstfruit of the ground, but only that he ^'brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord" (verse 3). It is fair to suppose that he did not bring of the firstfruit, which proved that his offering was not in the right spirit, and hence rejected. It is not to be supposed that the typical meaning 120 SABBATH THEOLOGY of the Sabbath was clearly recognized and under- stood from the beginning of time, but rather that it gradually dawned on man's perception as the great plan of Eedemption gradually unfolded itself. But whatever man's perception, it is certain that the full meaning of the Sabbath was in God's mind from the beginning, just as was also the full plan of Redemp- tion ; and it is as certain, also, that man in the early ages understood the full meaning of the Sabbath no better than he understood the full plan of Redemp- tion. Man lost the true spiritual sense of the Sabbath just in proportion as he drifted away from the true spiritual worship of God; and that man did thus drift away, with but a very few notable exceptions, the Bible itself testifies. Thus the typical sense of the Sabbath, which appealed only to the spiritual perception, was at best only dimly recognized and understood by the ancient peoples, and hence was very easily lost sight of. But, on the other hand, the memorial and rest day sense of the Sabbath appealed directly to man's material perception, and there was no danger of its being lost sight of. All the inhabitants of the earth were descendants of Noah and must have had the same Bible tradition of the Creation, which could only have come through Noah. One evidence of this is the Chaldean account of Creation, the date of which has been placed by the most eminent authorities at about 2000 B. 0. Hence the model sense of the week was not wanting. The rest day sense of the Sabbath, as rest from the six days before, and thus naturally belonging to the six days from which it is the resting, was too ANCIENT CAI.ENDAES AND LANGUAGES 121 plain not to be recognized, hence the seventh day of tbe week sense of the Sabbath was not wanting. On the other hand, the first day of the week worship sense of the Sabbath, together with its first day of time memorial sense, also appealed directly to man's material perception. Morover, it is practically certain that Adam, during the nine hundred and thirty years of his life, reaching down to the ninth generation, preserved the original day of the Sabbath; and the ever in- creasing force of habit during all these years would make the chances more than a hundred to one against any change. And the acquired precedence before the flood would make the same all the more true in the case of Noah, who lived to the tenth gen- eration after the flood. Thus the original day of the Sabbath would come to be specially recognized as the day appointed by the Great Creator for His Worship. The Sun or God of the sun, in heathen sun-worship, always represented the creative pow- er or principle in nature ; and hence the day of sun- worship would naturally be on the day handed down as the day appointed by the Creator. We have now the probable conditions that existed at the time the earliest calendars were formed. And we have the seventh day of the week sense of the Sabbath and the first day of the week sense, both claiming recognition in the formation of these cal- endars. Evidently, no time calendar can, in a time sense, be based on both, and naturally, therefore, we find some ancient calendars based on one and some on the other. It is worthy of notice that in those ancient calen- 122 SABBATH THEOLOGY dars in which worship was the paramount sense of the specially designated day (or Sabbath) it was the first day of the week, and where rest was the paramount sense, it was the last day of the week. It is evident that if separated, the worship sense of the Sabbath would attach to the first day of the week, and the rest sense to the last day of the week ; and it is evident, also, that both can only be recog- nized in a time calendar sense separately, as the first and last days of the week. Hence the separa- tion was the natural result of the breaking away from the original weekly cycle in the formation of the ancient calendars. After the day and the week, the month was un- doubtedly the earliest division of time. The fact that the thirty day month, so common in the ancient calendars, is the nearest approach to the moon's lunation clearly indicates its origin. But the moon's lunations are twenty-nine and one-half days, very nearly, so that the lunar months, to keep time with the moon, must be alternately twenty-nine and thirty days. Four seven day weeks equal twenty-eight days; therefore, in the ancient calendars which divided each month into four weeks, the twenty-nine day^ month consisted of three seven day weeks and one eight day week; and the thirty day month consisted of three seven day weeks and one nine day week, or two seven day weeks and two eight day weeks (either consecutively or alternately), which natur- ally gave rise to a number of different calendars. Now if the last day of each week was the Sabbath, then the Sabbaths were occasionally eight or nine ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 123 days apart; therefore those Sabbaths could not be in unbroken line with God's original every seventh day Sabbath. But the whole argument of Advent- ists and Seventh-day Baptists, relative to the anci- ent calendars, is based on these irregular Sabbaths, whereby their own argument destroys their essen- tial doctrine that the Sabbath has come down in unbroken succession from God's rest day. Since the specially marked day (or Sabbath) was the first day of the week in some of the ancient calendars, and the last day of the week in others, it follows that these irregularly timed Sabbaths fur- nish just as much argument on one side of the Sab- bath day question as on the other, and, in truth, fur- nish no argument on either side; because they had no relation to the original weekly cycle. It is very evident that the Sabbath cannot be on fixed days of the month, as in the ancient calendars, and, at the same time, be a fixed day of the original weekly cycle. The day of sun-worship is then the only clue to the original day of the Sabbath, for it is the only day that carries any proof, reaching back prior to the naming of the days, that it had any fixed relation to the original weekly cycle. Its proof consists in the simple fact that, while the ancient sun-worship- ing nations had different national calendars, yet, in the face of this fact the day of sun-worship was everywhere the same, showing that it was univer- sally regarded as a fixed and unchangeable every seventh day from the beginning of time; and thus, by reason of the fixed day of sun-worship, the origin nal weekly cycle was independent of all national 124 SABBATH THEOLOGY calendars then, jnst as it is still independent of all national calendars now, which fact can only be explained in its nnbroken continuance from the beginning of time. The original weekly cycle should not be confused with the ancient calendar weeks any more than mth the quarter lunations in the present day cal- endars; for the ancient calendar weeks undoubt- edly had their origin in the quarter lunations of the moon, and were doubtless associated with ancient moon-worship just as the original weekly cycle was associated with sun-worship. The expressions, "one into the Sabbath," "two into the Sabbath," etc., found in a number of the ancient languages, imply a method of counting days as distinct from the regular direct method, and therefore indicates the existence of two separate methods of counting the days of the week. The most natural conclusion, then, is that the days of the original and universally recognized weekly cycle, were originally known by the simple and direct numbers (as naturally the older method) and later by the astronomical names, and that the method of counting "into the Sabbath" applied to certain local or national calendars in which, begin- ning with the first day of each month the days of each week were counted with reference to the Sab- bath, and, as the count always began with the first day of each month, and as four seven day weeks fell short of a (29 or 30 day) month, it was neces- sery to add one or two intercalary days to fill out each month, — which were added either at the end or at different points in the month, according to the method of dividing the lunations. ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 125 It is very evident that these irregularly timed Sabbaths (because of the intercalary days) had no fixed relation to the original weekly cycle, and hence can prove nothing in regard to the day of the origi- nal Sabbath. A. H. Lewis, D. D. (Seventh-day Baptist) in his book entitled '' Sabbath and Sunday," on page 90, starts out to prove by the ancient calendars that the Sabbath was always the seventh day of the week in unbroken succession from the beginning of time. On pages 91 and 92, he quotes from the Encyclo- pedia Brittannica to the effect that the ancient Acca- dian calendar consisted of twelve months of thirtv days each, and belonged to about 2200 B. C, and that it passed on to the Assyrians. On page 96, he quotes from Prof. Sayce, who states that the Accadian months were lunar, and also, that in the Assyrian calendar discovered by Mr. Geo. Smith in 1869, the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of each month were termed days of sidum, or rest. Of course Mr. Lewis' point here is, that in this perhaps most ancient calendar, the Sabbaths were on the seventh day of the calendar week. But he makes no attempt to explain the necessary intercal- ary days between the 28th of each month and the 1st of the next, which, as we have shown, is abso- lutely fatal to his argument, because the necessary intercalary days at the end of each month makes it impossible for these Sabbaths to have had any fixed relation to the original weekly cycle; nor does he attempt to deny that the months were either lunar or thirty days, and that the count always began with 3-26 SABBATH THEOLOGY tEe first Say of each montli. Now lie cannot be igno- rant of the fact that the Sabbath cannot be on fixed days of the month and at the same time be a fixed day of the original weekly cycle. The only possible point that Mr. Lewis can here make is the recognition of the seventh day sense of the Sabbath, which we freely admit is the true rest day sense of the Sabbath. The first day of the week Sabbath is no less the seventh day in a rest day sense, for it is the resting from the six days before ; which fact no time calendar can change. The seventh day sense of the Sabbath does not depend on its relation to the time week, but on its relation to the days from which it is the resting. Now since these ancient calendars were all a breaking away from the original weekly cycle, noth- ing was more natural and to be expected than that the rest days would be recognized, in some of them at least, as the seventh day of the week. Now if the ancient Assyrians or Accadians observed as a rest day the seventh day of their calendar week and at the same time observed the seventh day of the origi- nal week, then six-sevenths of the time they kept two rest days a week (one-seventh of the time the [two lines of Sabbaths would coincide), which it will certainly be admitted, is extremely improbable, and certain it is that there is not the slightest hint to that effect. The very fact that these people kept the seventh day of their calendar week practically proves that they did not keep the seventh day of the original week. And we may reasonably con- clude also, that they did not keep the day of sun- >\^orship strictly in a rest day sense; for in so far ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 127. as the rest day sense of the original Sabbath was transferred to the seventh day of the calendar week, we may infer that it was withdrawn from the day of sun-worship (original day of the Sabbath), and therefore, that only the worship sense remained with the day of sun-worship, except in so far as sun- worship involved the cessation from ordinary labor. It now devolves upon Mr. Lewis to prove, either; that these Assyrian rest days were in direct unbrok- en line of succession with the original every seventh day Sabbath, in spite of the intercalary days at the end of each month, or else that six-sevenths of the time they kept two Sabbaths or rest days a week; and it is very evident that he can do neither. Hence the fact remains that the day of sun-worship is the only day that carries any proof that it had a fixed relation to the original weekly cycle. Mr. Lewis next takes up the calendar of India, and on page 107 quotes from Sacred Boohs of the East (Max Miiller — Vol. 5, page 406) as follows: *'The first weekly period begins with a day dedi- cated to Anharmazd, and called by his own name; and each of the three other weekly periods also be- gins with a day dedicated to Anharmazd, but called by the name of Din, religion, with the name of the following day added as a cognomen. The first week therefore consists of the day of Anharmazd, fol- lowed by six days The second Aveek consists of the day Din-with-Ataro, followed by six days .... The third week consists of the day Din-with-Mitro, followed by seven days And the fourth week consists of the day Din-with-Dino, followed by seven days.'' 128 SABBATH THEOLOGY Here we have two seven day weeks and two eight day weeks, and the marked day, or Sabbath, is on the first (not the seventh) day of each. Mr. Lewis says, on page 108, that the two weeks of eight days is to meet the inealary difficulty. Here he recognizes the intercalary difficulty. Then why does he totally ignore it in his argument? — Evi- dently because he cannot do otherwise. But this very intercalary difficulty is the fact that is fatal to Ills whole argument, as we have already shown. Mr. Lewis inserted this quotation, we presume, only as bearing on the origin of the week. But these weeks plainly could not be identical with the origi- nal week, so that we must conclude that each existed independently of the other, — the original week as universal and international, and the other as only national and local. Mr. Lewis next takes up the Hindus, or Buddhist, calendar and quotes from Sacred Boohs of the East, (Vol. 12, p.p. 251 and 254, foot notes), *^1. Uposatha is the name for the sacred day of the moon's changes — first and more especially, the full-moon day; next the new-moon day; and lastly the days equidistant between these two. It was therefore a weekly sa- cred day, and as Childers says, may often be well rendered Sabbath.'' *^2. Uposatha, a weekly sa- cred day, being full-moon day, new-moon day, and two equidistant intermediate days." Mr. Lewis cannot be ignorant of the fact that these sacred days on the moon's changes would nec- essarily involve an occasional eight day week, since four seven day weeks fall about one and one-half Als^CIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 129 days sliort of a complete lunation, and therefore that the weeks of this calendar could not coincide with the original weekly cycle. Moreover, here, as in the preceding associated calendar, the sacred days were evidently on the first day of the week; for the lunar month would naturally begin with the begin- ning of the lunation, and if the first week began with the sacred day of the moon's change, the others would also. In the last two calendars the paramount sense of these special days seems to be not rest but worship, which will explain why they were not on the last day of the week; while in the Assyrian calendar they are specially designated as rest days, and we notice that they were on the seventh days, counting from the first of the month, regardless of the moon's changes, and that the intercalary days were ahvays inserted at the end of each month. These calendar sacred first days of the week are not to be confused with the universally fixed day of sun-worship; and that both were observed is in accord with the fact that each day of the original week was dedicated to the worship of some god — sometimes more than one. These calendar first days would fall on different days of the original week in turn in regularly repeating cycles (varying with the nature of the calendar) ; thus during each complete cycle honoring each god equally in turn in the cal- endar first day of the week sacred day. We might even infer that instead of each day involving the worship of some god, that the god to be worshiped in turn was determined by the day of the original week on which the first day of the calendar week fell. . 130 SABBATH THEOLOGY "When the calendar first day fell on the day of sun- worship, it would only add its luster, and thus in no way conflict with sun-worship. Since the rest element in connection with worship was largely lost sight of, it is not to be supposed that any time was lost from ordinary labor more than was necessarily involved in worship, and that ordinarily no considerable part of the day was in- volved, and doubtless the worship consisted largely of private morning and evening devotions. On page 106, Mr. Lewis quotes from H. H. Wilson, A. M., F. R. S., Professor of Sanscrit, Oxford, Works, Vol. 2 of Essays on ^'The Religion of the Hindus,'' p.p. 198-201, as follows: ^'The specifica- tion of the days of the week by the names of the planets, is, as is well known, familiar to the Hindus Sunday is one of every seven. This is some- what different from the Seventh Tithi, or lunar day ; but a sort of sanctity is or was attached even to Sunday, and fasting on it was considered obligatory or meritorious It is impossible to avoid infer- ring from the general character of the prayers and observances and the sanctity evidently attached to the recurring seventh day, some connection with the Sabbath, or Seventh of the Hebrew Heptameron." Here Mr. Wilson first recognizes the fact that the Hindus were familiar with the original week in the seven invariable names of the days. Then he plain- ly refers to two separate methods of reckoning time, in that Sunday Avas an every seventh day, but that the lunar seventh day had a ^'somewhat different meaning," i. e., not always an every seventh day. Then he refers to the fact that this every seventh ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 131 day, Sunday, was regarded as a sacred day (thus corresponding to the day of sun-worship), and that the general character of the devotions on that day was similar to that of the Hebrew Sabbath. This is certainly all that can legitimately be made out of the quotation. The words, ^^the recurring seventh day'' (which Mr. Lewis probably infers to mean ** seventh day of the week''), the connection shows, can only refer to the every seventh day Sunday. We have already shown that the sacred days of the Hindu calendar were on the first, not the seventh day in the calendar week. Besides, no day of this calendar week could always be an every seventh day because of the intercalary days involved. Hence Mr. Wilson refers to Sunday which he expressly states was an every seventh day. These are the only calendars to which Mr. Lewis refers. We will now collect the remaining quotations that have any bearing on the Sabbath question : — 1. Page 92. — ^^The week of seven days was in use from an early period, indeed, the names which w^e still give to the days can be traced to Ancient Babylonia; and the seventh day was one of sulum, or rest." — Encyc. Brittannica. 2. Page 93. — ^'The sexagesimal division of the circle, the signs of the zodiac, a week of seven days, named as we now name them, and the seventh a day of rest, are all Accadian." — Library of Universal Knoivledge. 3. Page 96. — ^^ Seven was a sacred number among the Accadians, and their lunar months were 132 SABBATS THEOLOGY at an early epocli divided into periods of seven days each. The days were dedicated to the sun and moon and five planets, and to the deities who presided over these." — Prof. Sayce. These three quotations plainly confuse the origi- nal week with the Accadian calendar, in which the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of each month were designated as days of rest. But these days could not continuously coincide with the seventh day of the orignal unbroken seven-day cycle, because o?. the necessary intercalary days at the end of each month. 4. Page 98. — ^'Even the word Sabhath itself was not unknown to the Assyrians." — Sayce. 5. Page 103. — ^^We have also historical evidence as to the non-Jewish origin of the observance of the seventh day For Philo Judaens, Josephus, Clemen of Alexandria and others, speak plainly of the week as not of Jewish origin, but common to all the Oriental nations." — Proctor. The Accadian calendar, with its seventh day Sab- bath, was much older than the Jewish Sabbath, and hence ^^the observance of the seventh day" did not originate with the Jews. 6. Page 103. — ^^ Amongst all the nations which used the week as a division of time, the seventh day was associated with the planet Saturn." — Proctor. This was true of the seventh day of the original week, but could not at the same time be true of the seventh day in the various calendars which did not even coincide with each other. 7. Page 105. — *^ Saturn's day was always con- nected with the Jewish Sabbath." — Philosophical Museum, ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 133 This could be strictly true only in a reversed sense, for the name ^'Saturn's day'' existed before the name *^ Jewish" could be applied to the Sabbath. 8. Page 109. — ^ ' Throughout all the nations of the ancient world the planets are to be found appropri- ated to the days of the week. The seven-day cycle with each named after a planet, and universally the same day allotted to the same planet in all the na- tions of the world, constitute the first proof and leave no room to doubt that one system must have prevailed over the whole.'' — Godfrey Higgin's AnaclypsiSj Book 1, Chap. 1, sec. 5. 9. Page 110. — '^We find from time immemorial, the use of this period among all nations without any variation in the form of it. The Israelites, As- syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Arabians, and, in a word, all the nations of the Orient, have, in all ages, made use of a week of seven days. We find the same custom among the ancient Eomans, Gauls, Bri- tons, Germans, the nations of the North, and Ameri- ca. Many vain conjectures have been formed con- cerning the reason and motives which determined all mankind to agree in this primitive division of time ; but it is evident that the tradition concerning the length of time employed in the creation of the world has given rise to this usage, universal and imme- morial, which originally divided the week into seven days." — President Gognet of France. These last two quotations bear strong testimony to the unbroken continuance of the original weekly cycle. Note how perfect the harmony throughout all these testimonies when we recognize the original 134 SABBATH THEOLOGY week and the ancient calendars as existing togetlier/ and independently of each other, bnt how otherwise irreconcilable the confusion. The only reasonable conclusion is, that the original weekly cycle was inde- pendent of all national calendars then, as now, and universally regarded as reaching back to the begin- ning of time, and recognized as the true time week by all nations alike, and had thus an international application while the various other calendars had each only a local or national application. The names of the sun, moon, and five planets were applied only to the days of the original week, the proof of which is in the fact that the names never exceeded seven while the local or calendar weeks sometimes contained eight or nine days, and nine names would have been needed. Or, if we suppose that the intercalary days were given no names, still the regular rotation of the seven days would be broken. But this supposition is contradicted in the uniformity of the day of sun-worship ; for if it was not regulated by a universally recognized week, but by the various calendar weeks of the different na- tions, it would evidently not be on the same day in the different nations; but there is not the slightest hint of any lack of uniformity in the day of sun-wor- ship throughout the world. Thus we are brought back to the day of sun-wor- ship, in its continuance of the original day of the Sabbath, as the onlv monument to the unbroken con- tinuance of the original v/eekly cycle. We have now examined every quotation that has any bearing on the Sabbath : the rest have a bearing only on the origin and the unbroken continuance of ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 135 the weekly cycle, and on tliis point we fully agree with Mr. Lewis. In justice to Mr. Lewis we must admit that he does not rest his Sabbath argument here, for if he did, it would certainly not be much to his credit. He ap- parently takes it for granted that he has already proven in preceding chapters that the Sabbath was, by reason of the Creation model, the original seventh day of the week, and that all he has to do here is to prove that the week was never changed. At the beginning of the chapter, he says, ^^If the week which antedates Moses and existed among the nations that flourished before the time of the Hebrew nation is identical with the Hebrew and the Chris- tian week, then it is certain that there was no change of the week or of the Sabbath, when the Israelites left Egypt, as certain men claim who are more visionary than scholarly. ' ^ Mr. Lewis' conception of the ancient calendar weeks, with their occasional intercalary days, as identical with the Hebrew and the Christian week is certainly ^^more visionary than scholarly.'' We will now undertake to prove by Mr. Lewis' own words the reverse of what he intends to teach. He says: 1. Page 8. ^^ God's power is infinite, measure- less, His acts, and the time in which He performs them, are also unmeasurable by us. We apprehend that the creative week was infinitely longer than our week of seven days of twenty-four hours." 2. Page 46. — *^ There could have been no Sab- bath if God had not rested on a definite day, for a 136 SABBATH THEOLOGY definite purpose, wliich no other day could answer." 3. Page 118. — ** These facts give all needful logi- cal and historical support to the claim that the seventh day of the week, improperly called Satur- day, is the Sabbath of Jehovah in regular succes- sion from the hour when the morning stars sang to- gether, and the sons of God shouted for joy.'* In the first quotation, Mr. Lewis admits that the creation days were indefinite periods, and therefore not time days. Then it is self-evident that the first day of the first week of time was the first day of time on which God rested from the Creation. The second quotation is a definite claim that God's rest day was the starting point of the Sabbath. The third quotation could not be a more definite asser- tion that the week was never changed. Then, ac- cording to Mr. Lewis' own statements, it necessarily follows: that the original Sabbath was on the first day of the week (corresponding to the day of sun- worship) and was not changed before the giving of the manna ; and if the Sabbath was on the first day of the week before the manna, and on the seventh day of the week after the manna, then the day must have been changed by the manna; and, if changed by the manna, it was not a fixed unchangeable day; and, if not a fixed unchangeable day, then the Sab- bath law did not ^x the day of the Sabbath. We could ask no more positive arguments for these facts than Mr. Lewis gives in his own words. But Mr. Lewis argues that ^'Our week is modeled after God's by His command" (p. 8). Can Mr. Lewis deny that the Sunday Sabbath is rest from the six days before, just as God's resting was from ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 137 the six creation days before, and hence the seventh day in the true model or rest sense! Does he think that any time division can change a fact? — Nothing in heaven or earth can change a fact that is a fact. Or does he think that the Sunday Sabbath is rest from the six days after instead of the six days be- fore? If Mr. Lewis insists on modeling the time week after God's creation model, then he must put the Sabbath on the seventh day although God rested on the first day. But he says (p. 46), ^^No other day could answer'' but the day on which God rested; and his whole fixed unchangeable day doctrine depends on God's rest as the fact, making it fixed and unchangeable. His only escape from this dilem- ma is to accept the twenty-four-hour creation-day theory (making time begin with the first day of crea- tion) and at least be consistent. Again Mr. Lewis says (page 116), **It is impos- sible to believe that God deceived the Israelites at Sinai by founding the Sabbath on His own example, and then designating a day not in the regular order from the Adamic Sabbath. It would have been sheer deception thus to do. The Sabbath law rested on a false foundation from the beginning, if the day designated in the law was not the true one, and God was the immediate author of the cheat. ' ' Mr. Lewis here assumes that the law designated the day of the Jewish Sabbath, whereas the manna, not the law, designated the day. Then the institu- tion, not the day, was the foundation on which the law rested. 138 SABBATH THEOLOGY If the day of the original Sabbath was the same as the day of sun-worship, then God had good reason for changing it for the Israelites, to make it a sign between Him and them, and also to remove so far as possible the influence of sun-worship. * Again, the reason on which the Sabbath was founded was the entire creation model, not God's rest alone. Mr. Lewis evidently reads the creation reason appended to the fourth commandment as if the ** wherefore" referred only to God's resting; whereas, the grammatical construction requires that it refer to the entire preceding clause, including the entire creation model. God worked six days and rested the seventh, which He gave as the reason why He required the Israelites to do the same, and this did not involve any deception. Again, Mr. Lewis says (p: 117), ^^ Christ, who is the center of all dispensations, recognized the Sab- bath as a part of his Father's law and pruned it that it might bring forth more and better fruit. ' ' If the law did not fix the day of the Sabbath, then Christ recognized the Sabbath as an institution, not as a fixed day. A comparison of the fruit of the Sunday and of the Saturday Sabbaths would certainly not be favor- able to the latter. TESTIMONY OF ANCIENT AND MODEKN LANGUAGES. We have a practical summary of this testimony from the Seventh-day Baptist view in The Chart of Weeks by Eev. William M. Jones, D. D. (Seventh- day Baptist) of London, England. ANCIENT CALENDARS AND LANGUAGES 139 It is claimed tliat ont of tlie one Imnclred and sixty ancient and modern languages investigated, one hun- dred and eight know the seventh day of the week by the name of ^^ Sabbath'^ or its equivalent, and that all testify to the order and identity of the days of the ancient and modern week. This, of course, is fully indorsed by Adventists, and one Adventist writer says {The Lord's Day: The Test of the Ages, page 21), '^It might be well here, in view of this impregnable wall of testimony, to ask. What becomes of that theory which claims that Sunday was the original seventh day to all the world save the JewsT^ Since the Chart is thus regarded as an *^ impregnable wall of testimony," it ought to be worthy of some consideration. The first column of the Chart (which is in four large sheets) gives the name of each language; the second column gives the name of the week as a whole in each language; the remainder of the Chart is divided into seven columns, corresponding to the seven days of the week and numbered accordingly. In each language the name of each day of the week (in the original, the transliteration, and the Eng- lish) is put in the column designated for that day. It is a very simple and easy matter to thus line up the days of the different languages to conform to a prearranged seven column file ; and there is nothing on the face of the Chart to show that this lining up was not purely arbitrary on the part of the author. The Chart totally ignores the intercalary days necessarily involved in all of the ancient calendars outside of the original weekly cycle; which fact at 140 SABBATH THEOLOGY once renders it valueless as reliable evidence on the Sabbath question. The ancient languages necessarily bear the same testimony as the ancient calendars, for they must necessarily correspond. We have already pointed out the fact that the weeks of those ancient calendars with their occasional intercalary days — and which did not even coincide among themselves — could not coincide with the original weekly cycle ; and it neces- sarily follows that the Sabbaths, or specially marked days of those calendars, could have no fixed rela- tion to the original weekly cycle. Hence the Chart proves nothing as to the identity of the ancient cal- endar weeks with the modern (or original) week, nor to the identity of the ancient calendar Sabbaths with the original day of the Sabbath. Again, assuming that Dr. Lewis made the best showing possible out of the ancient calendars, and that in two out of the three cases presented by him, the specially marked days were on the first, not the seventh, day of the week, we may fairly conclude that the marked days, claimed as Sabbaths, were as often on the first as on the seventh day of the week in the ancient calendars. Of course, the word translated ^ ^Sabbath'' is, in the Chart, invariably put as the seventh day of the week, just as the word ^^ Sabbath'' in the fourth commandment is invariably interpreted by S. D. Baptists and Adventists, and proves no more in one case than in the other. In eighty-seven of the languages, the word trans- lated *^ Sabbath'' is thus arbitrarily put as the sev- enth day of the week. These from the one hundred ANCIENT CALENDAES AND LANGUAGES 141 and eight claimed for the seventh day of the week Sabbath leaves twenty-one in which the equivalent of the word ^^ Sabbath ^^ is supposed to be found. Six of these equivalents are translated ^^Bath day.'' The remaining fifteen are as follows : 1. " Chief or Rejoicing Day;" 2. (Day) Seven; 3. A day to wash clothes, ^'Purification Day;'' 4. the Seventh Planet 5. The Eye of God — Saturn, Seventh Brilliant Star 6. Day Seven; 7. Day; 8. The Son of the Sun Saturn; 9. Saturn Planet; 10. Worship-day Seven 11. Day in order Seven; 12. One Quarter (of the moon or lunation) ; 13. Half-day; 14. Diag day (day without work) (week-back) ; 15. Hinder end-day. Some of these are certainly very far-fetched equiva- lents for the word '^Sabbath." The eighty-seven languages in which the word translated ''Sabbath" is supposed to refer to the seventh day of the week, includes thirty-six, or near- ly all of the modern European languages ; and it is a well known fact that the Sunday Sabbath is almost universally recognized all over Europe. But yet the Chart represents that the word "Sabbath" in all these languages refers only to the seventh day of the week. This one fact alone shows the arbitrary character of the whole Chart. Of course, Adventists and S. D. Baptists regard the word "Sabbath" in all languages just as they do in the English, and in the English just as they do in the Bible, and throughout the Bible just as they do in the fourth commandment, and everywhere and always that it means only the seventh day of the week. They cannot, consistently with their doctrine, recognize for an instant any other possibility. 142 SABBATH THEOLOGY Hence Mr. Jones' Sabbath doctrine is the key to his Chart. The Chart is an ^^impregnable wall of testimony '^ in just the same sense that all their ar- guments are impregnable — to themselves, but to nobody else. CHAPTER VII. THE SATUEDAY EESUEEECTION THEOEY EXAMINED. Dr. Lewis in his book, Sabbath and Sunday, page 59, thus states his theory regarding the day of the Resurrection : — * ^ Christ was crucified and entombed on the fourth day of the week, commonly called Wednesday. He lay in the grave ^ Three days and three nights' and rose 'late in the Sabbath' at an hour corresponding with the hour of His entombment, at which time two of the women came to see the sepulchre." On page 57, he says that he published this propo- sition about 1865 ; from which we infer that he is the originator of the theory. His argument begins with Matt. 12 : 40, ''For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." From Matt. 27 : 57-60 and John 19 : 31,42, he concludes (p. 52) "that it was late in the day, just before the setting of the sun, that the body of Christ was laid in the grave," and argues that the Resurrection must be at the same hour of the day to make true -^ 144 SABBATH THEOLOGY the prophecy of ''three days and three nights;" and his argument finally rests on Matt. 28 : 1, R. V., ^^Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magda- lene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." The argument here turns on the words ^4ate" and *^dawn" as regards their correct rendering in the original. This is a brief outline of Mr. Lewis' argument. It is evident that his sole aim is to destroy the Resur- rection claim of the Sunday Sabbath. But does he! Even if his theory were true I If Christ rose ^^just before the setting of the sun'' (or end of the day) on Saturday, as Mr. Lewis claims, then practically the whole of Saturday is enshrouded in the gloom of the grave, and the whole of Sunday is enveloped in the glory of the Resurrection. Can Saturday be claimed as the first day of the Resurrection era with twenty-three twenty- fourths of it in the tomb! Which would be the first day of the Resurrection era in the true sense — the less than one hour of Satur- day or the whole of Sunday? For the Resurrection to point to Saturday as the day of the Resurrection, it would have to point backward, not forward. Then did the Resurrection point backward to a dead Christ or forward to a living Christ? All of the despair and gloom of the grave belong to Saturday : all of the joy and hope of the Resurrection belong to Sunday. And all of Mr. Lewis' theory cannot re- verse it, even if his theory were true. The theory therefore is not worthy of the strained effort to prove it, and only indicates the character of the doctrine that it is meant to sustain. SATURDAY EESUKRECTION THEORY 145 Mr. Lewis bases liis whole argument concerning tlie time of the Resurrection on Matt. 28 : 1. On page 53, he says that Matthew here ^ Hells of a visit previous to the one spoken of by the other three writers.'' On page 58, he says, ^* Matthew speaks of the first visit to the sepulchre 4ate in the Sabbath,' to which visit the other evangelists do not refer; they describe a second visit made early on the fol- lowing morning." So the argument here depends on whether the visit described by Matthew was or was not the same as that described by Mark, Luke and John. On page 59, Mr. Lewis says, ^'Matthew's account of the first visit evidently closes with the eighth verse, and in the ninth he passes to the scenes of the next morning." Let us then read these two verses. 8. *^And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word. 9. And behold, Jesus met them, saying. All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him" (R. V.). Jesus then said to them (verse 10), ^^Fear not; go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me." (The same message that the angel gave in verse 7.) Then they had not yet told the disciples ; but in verse 8 they were running to tell the disciples. Hence we must conclude that before they had time to tell the disciples Jesus met them. But, according to Mr. Lewis, we must assume that, though they ran in their haste to tell the disciples, they changed their mind and waited till morning and went back to the tomb without telling the disciples, and then on their second return Jesus met them. 146 SABBATH THEOLOGY If Jesus rose just before sunset on Saturday and the fact was at once reported by the women, can we imagine the disciples so unconcerned as to calmly wait till morning and then go to the tomb to see if the report were true? In John 20 : 1-4 we are told that Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and John, and they ran to the sepulchre, and John in his haste out- ran Peter, showing that they lost no time in going to the sepulchre as soon as they heard Mary's report. Again, in verse 6 of Matthew's account, the angel told the women that Jesus was risen, and said, *'Come see the place where the Lord lay." But if Mr. Lewis is right, then, according to Mark and Luke, they went back the next morning with spices to anoint the body. Now if we accept Mr. Lewis' view, we must conclude that, though the angel told them that the Lord was risen, they did not believe it, but on their second visit to the tomb took spices to anoint His body. Mark 16 : 1-3 says, * ^ Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun was risen. And they were saying among themselves. Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb" (B. V.). Here we notice : 1. Two of the women are the same as men- tioned by Matthew. 2. This visit is clearly stated to be on the first day of the week. Now, why did they bring spices to anoint the body of Jesus and why did they wonder who should roll away the stone, if on the evening before the angel rolled back the SATURDAY RESUERECTION THEORY 147 stone (Matt. 28 : 2) and told them that Jesus wa^ risen, and showed them the place where he lay? Thus we see the irreconcilable contradictions in- volved in Mr. Lewis' two visit theory; and we see also that the circumstantial evidences are sufficient to fully identify all four accounts as referring to one and the same visit. Mr. Lewis admits that three of these accounts! refer to a visit in the morning, and we can be sure that he would not make this admission if there was any possibility of avoiding it. Then we have three sure witnesses, as against one doubtful witness^ that the visit was in the morning. And herein is the full justification for interpreting the doubtful ren- dering of Matthew's account to harmonize with the other three. ^v. *« The first clause under dispute is, **Now late on the Sabbath day" (Matt. 28 : 1, E. V.). The com- mon version renders it, *^In the end of the Sabbath." Dr. Clark renders it, *^ After the end of the week,'' and says, ^^This is the translation given by several eminent critics : and in this way the word otps is used by the most eminent Greek writers." He then gives a number of examples. — See Clarices Commentaries, Mr. Lewis admits that o^j^s may mean ** after" in certain constructions, but not in the construction before us. But in the examples given by Clark from eminent Greek writers, we have exactly similar con- structions in which practically no other meaning i$ possible. Hence we conclude that the meaning *^ after" is at least permissible in the present case, which is all that is necessary. The second clause under dispute is, **As it began 148 SABBATH THEOLOGY to dawn toward the first day of the week/' Here Mr. Lewis claims that the word translated **dawn" could properly be rendered ^'draw on,'' but he does not deny that ^'dawn" is also a proper rendering. Again he claims that the *^ first day of the week" necessarily began at sunset of the Sabbath. Thus he would have the passage mean, ^^As the Sabbath be- gan to draw on toward sunset." The Bible throughout uses the Avords *^day" and ^^ night" in a separate sense, as well as the word ^^day" in a twenty-four hour sense, and the day- light sense of the word *^day" was as commonly rec- ognized in Matthew's time as now. Hence it is not improbable that he used it here in this common nat- ural sense. Alford {Greek Gospels) says, ''It is best to interpret a doubtful expression in unison with other testimonies, and to suppose that here both the day and the hreahing of the day, are taken in their natural sense, not in their Jewish sense." Therefore, ' 'After the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, etc., would be an entirely proper and permissible rendering. And Matthew's account as thus rendered agrees perfectly with the other three. And this rendering is fully justified in the fact that the circumstantial evidence, as already shown, fully identifies the four accounts as referring to the same visit ; and, as regarding the time in the other three accounts, there is no dispute. In regard to the prophecy of "Three days and three nights," in Matt. 12 : 40, Mr. Lewis says (p. 50), "The circumstances forbid all indefiniteness of expression." Thus he argues for the literal ap- SATURDAY RESURKECTION THEORY 149 plication of the expression ''Three days and three nights/^ yet in his application he completely re- verses it, and makes the time that Christ was in the grave ''three nights and three days" instead of "three days and three nights.'' The reversal of the prophecy very materially changes its prophetic sense; therefore he cannot claim that it makes no difference, when it does make a difference. Three nights and three days would not be a literal fulfillment of three days and three nights. Mr. Lewis, we presume, also holds the sunset to sunset theory making "the night and the day" the God appointed order of the twenty-four hour day. Then can he give any good reason why the prophecy was "three days and three nights" if the fact was the reverse? To fulfill the sign of Jonah the time must correspond in both cases. If "three nights and three days" was the fact in both cases, then the statement would undoubtedly correspond to the fact, not to the reverse of the fact, if a strictly literal application was essential. A literal application must put the days and the nights in the order mentioned. The application is not literal unless strictly literal, and if not strictly literal, then Mr. Lewis' whole argu- ment for a strictly literal application fails. The ap- parent discrepancy in the prophecy of "three days and three nights" is more easily explained than is Mr. Lewis' reversal of the prophecy. Albert Barnes in his notes on this verse, says, "It was a maxim, also, among the Jews in computing time, that a part of a day w^as to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. — See 2 Chron. 150 SABBATH THEOLOGY 10 : 5,12; Gen. 42 : 17,18. Compare Esther 4 : 16 with 5 : 1.'' It will be seen from these references that ^^ three days'^ or ^^ after three days" mean the same as ^'on the third day;" that is, the indefinite part of the first and third days count as whole days. In John 2 : 19 Jesus said, *^ Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," which, by the key furnished in Gen. 42 : 17,18 and Esther 4 : 16, 5 : 1, would mean '^on the third day." In Mark 8 : 31, He said that he would *^be killed and after three days rise again," which by the key furnished in 2 Chron. 10 : 5,12, would mean **on the third day." InMatt. 16 :21;17 :23;Mark9 :31;10 :34; Luke 9 : 22 ; 18 : 33 ; 24 : 7, He said that he would rise ^ ^ the third day. ' ' We have here nine prophecies (including John 2 : 19 and Mark 8 : 31) by Christ Himself that He would rise on *^the third day." The expression ''the third day" or ^*on the third day" is inclusive in sense — including the three days in mind — and necessarily includes the day on which the event occurred from which the count is taken; for this day is necessarily one of the three in mind, and thus one of the three days involved in the count. This inclusive sense of the expression *Hhe third day" is rendered doubly certain here, in view of the well authenticated Jewish inclusive method of counting a part of a day as the whole, and including the days from which and to which the count refers. It would be unreasonable to expect to arrive at a correct understanding of a Jewish reckoning by ignoring the Jewish method of reckoning. Now; if Christ was buried on Wednesday, then SATURDAY EESUEKECTION THEORY 151 "Wednesady must be counted tlie first day, Tliursday the second, Friday the tliird, and Saturday the fourth. Hence, according to Mr. Lewis' theory, Christ rose on the fourth day contrary to His oft repeated prophecy that He would rise ^Hhe third day.'' The expressions ''after three days" and ''three days and three nights" are practically equivalent, and the Jewish inclusive method of reckoning which furnishes a key to the former, also furnishes a pos- sible key to the latter ; and a possible key is all that is required, in view of the necessity of harmoniz- ing the prophecy of "three days and three nights" wath the other nine parallel prophecies. Christ could not remain in the grave three whole days and nights and rise on "the third day." In answer to Christ's question, "What things?" (Luke 24 : 19), the disciples answered, "The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene. . . .and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be con- demned to death, and crucified him Yea, and be- side all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass" (R. V.). This was then on the third day since the crucifixion, for the words "these things" plainly refer to the things just men- tioned; but if Christ was crucified on Wednesday, then it was the fifth day since. Mr. Lewis makes a lame attempt to evade this evi- dence. On page 61, he says, "Now it is very clear that that conversation concerning the reported resurrection must have included a discussion of the important fact that after all else had occurred, and Christ was buried, a guard had been set to prevent 152 SABBATH THEOLOGY liis resurrection/^ On page 62 lie says, *'The obvi- ous meaning of Luke 24 : 21 is this, ' The time is now fully up since the final effort was made to prevent a resurrection, and this morning the women reported that in spite of all efforts to the contrary, it had actually taken place. ' ^ ' Where Mr. Lewis gets his idea that the guard was set to prevent the resurrection, we do not know. According to Matt. 27 : 64, it was set to prevent the disciples from stealing the body of Christ and re- porting that he had risen. A thing that they had no thought of doing; and hence the placing of the guard was a matter of no concern to the disciples. The revival of hope in the reported resurrection of Jesus can only be set over against the gloom occa- sioned by His death. The overshadowing promi- nence of these two thoughts makes it impossible for any unimportant detail to be thought of in the same connection. But, according to Mr. Lewis, these dis- ciples meant, *^It is now the third day since the placing of the guard," thus making the placing of the guard the most prominent thought in their minds. It is not even probable that the disciples knew of the placing of the guard, for the guard was doubt- less placed secretly to entrap the disciples if they should attempt to steal the body of Jesus. The priests certainly did not publish the fact of setting the guard. Besides, it was placed on the Sabbath, and the disciples would not likely know of it till they went to the tomb ; and we find the women won- dering on their way to the tomb, * ^ Who shall roll us away the stone T* showing that this was the only dif- SATURDAY RESUERECTION THEOEY 153 ficulty of which they were aware. But if they had known of the sealing of the stone and placing of the guard, they would have recognized a greater obstacle than the roiling away of the stone. Mr. Lewis says (page 60), ^'The guard was set to cover a time three days from the entombment,'' and that the women (on their first visit) ^^came to the tomb Avith the evident design of being present the moment the guard should be removed.'' Mr. Lewis here assumes that the guard was set to cover exactly three days from the entombment, and that the women were aware of this fact. There is certainly not the slightest evidence to support this assump- tion. We see in Matt. 27 : 63,64 that the guard was set on account of Christ's prophecy that he would rise *' after three days," and to prevent the disciples from stealing the body by night, (for evidently they would not attempt to steal it by day) and re- porting that He had risen. Now Mr. Lewis will insist on the full ^Hhree days and three nights" measure of the prophecy, and that the resurrection was to be ^^ after." Then the night *^ after" would be when the disciples would make at least their final (supposed) attempt to steal the body, and the guard would certainly not be removed before the morning. Matthew 28 gives the account of the rolling back .of the stone and the dismissal of the guard by the angel, and the visit of the women. Now if this was their first visit and they were thus made aware of the removal of the guard, they were also aware of the Eesurrection and the rolling away of the stone so we see that there is not the slightest evidence 154 SABBATH THEOLOGY that the women knew of the guard, but conclusive evidence to the contrary in the evident fact that the rolling away of the stone was the only obstacle they were aware of. Nor is it any more likely that any of the other disciples knew of the gTiard. Even with the guard supposition, Mr. Lewis must ignore the Jewish inclusive method of reckoning. He says that the guard was placed on Thursday, and that Friday was the first day since the placing of the guard, and hence Sunday was the third day since; but, according to the Jewish inclusive method, the day on which the guard was placed v^ould be the first, and if this was Thursday, then Sunday would be the fourth day since. Finally, the guard supposition must be wholly as- sumed without the slightest warrant, for the guard is not here mentioned, nor is the slightest reference made to it anywhere in Luke's gospel. This magni- fied importance of the guard is evidently the best evasion that can be made, which fact only exposes the weakness of the position it was meant to sustain. Christ must necessarily fulfil to the letter every type of the Jewish ceremonial law. The ^^ paschal lamb'' was a type of Christ, who was the ^'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. ' ' The sheaf of firstfruits, waved as a wave offering, was a type of Christ, who in His resurrection became the * ^ first- fruits of them that slept." The paschal lamb was always slain on the day before the Passover Sabbath, and the sheaf of firstfruits was waved as a wave offering on the day after the Passover Sabbath.; Hence Christ's death must be on the day before th^ ■ Passover Sabbath, and His resurrection on the day* , SATURDAY RESURRECTION THEORY 155 after tlie Passover Sabbath in order to fulfil botli types. All of Christ's prophecies, and also the types referring to Him, must harmonize ; and it is only by harmonizing them that we can hope to arrive at the truth — not by arbitrarily interpreting one to the con- tradiction of the others. Mr. Lewis, in his arbitrary interpretation of the ^^ three days and three nights,'' totally ignores both the Jewish method of reckoning (which furnishes a possible solution of the apparent discrepancy) and the types which it was necessary for Christ to fulfil. A possible solution of the apparent discrepancy involved in the prophecy of ^^ three days and three nights" is all that is required in view of the positive evidence regarding the time that Christ's body lay; in the grave. It may be said to the credit of the Adventists that they make no attempt to sustain Mr. Lewis' theory, showing that they do not consider it worthy of sup- port. Mr. Lewis says, on page 57, ** About 1865, the writer published the proposition that Christ's en- tombment occurred on the evening of the fourth day of the week and his resurrection before the close of the Sabbath, and not upon the first day of the week. The proposition was met with a storm of criticism by some, and with careful consideration by others. This interpretation has gained ground steadily until the highest authorities in New Testament criticism now support it. The revisers of the New Testament have given it absolute sanction, by translating as above.'' 156 feABBATH THEOLOGY Here Mr. Lewis plainly assumes that tlie revisers of the New Testament fully endorse his theory, merely because they translated the first clause of Matt. 2S : 1 to read, ''Now late on the Sabbath day.'' They also translated the second clause to read, '^As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;" and the second clause offsets the first, so that the entire translation is an endorsement of no theory. There is just as much ground for changing the word ^ ' late ' ' to ' ' after ' ' as for changing the word ' ' dawn' ' to ''draw on." The fact that the translators gave the most char- acteristic sense of the original word in each case is no proof that no other translation is permissible, and hence is no proof that they endorse Mr. Lewis' theory. This arbitrary assumption of the revisers' endorsement furnishes a fair basis for judging of Mr. Levvds' other statement, that "the highest auth- orities in New Testament criticism now support" his theory. Dr. Lewis' theory has been recently revived in a small pamphlet entitled "Three Days and Three Nights: or The Greatest Puzzle of Christendom Solved at Last," by Lt.-Col T. W. Eichardson, Edi- tor of The Sahhath Observer, the official organ of the Seventh-day Baptists in England. Mr. Eichardson 's theory is identical with that of Mr. Le"wis', first published, as Mr. Lewis states, about 1865. But we infer from the title of Mr. Eich- ardson 's pamphlet, that he claims to be the origi- nator of the theory, which implies that he was un- aware of Mr. Lewis' claim. This furnishes a very SATURDAY RESURRECTION THEORY 157 practical comment on Mr. Lewis' statement that his theory *4ias gained gronrd steadily until,'' etc. It is not necessary here to refer to the arguments already answered in answering Mr. Lewis. In regard to the word ^'dawn," Mr. Richardson says (page 12), *' Though it frequently means about sunrise, its real meaning is a ^lighting up,' and is applicable to the intelligence as well as to the sun or lamps." Very well, but when it is used in connection with the word ^^day," as in Matt. 28 : 1, it must have reference to the ^^ lighting up" of the day, not to the intelligence, or even to lamps. And this 'lighting up" or dawning ^^ toward the first day of the week" shows that the word *^day" is here used in its daylight sense, not in its twenty-four hour sense. To assume, as Mr. Richardson does, that the word **day" here necessarily means ^^from sunset to sun- set" is to assume that it is never otherwise used in the Bible. Whereas, the daylight sense of the word, as separate and distinct from the night sense, is used all through the Bible, just as it is used to-day. Again (p. 15), *^Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week. He appeared first to Mary Magdalene" (Mark 16 : 9). By placing the comma after *^ risen," instead of after '^week," Mr. Rich- ardson is able to evade the direct statement that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. He says also (p. 17), that this **was not His first appearance, but His first '^ First-day appearance," that He first appeared to the two Mary's on the Sabbath and they '* worshipped him," that the next morning He ap- peared again to Mary Magdalene. 158 SABBATH THEOLOGY In John 20 : 15, we find that when Jesus met Mary Magdalene, she supposed Him to be the gardener and said, ^'Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Then He had not met her before, for she still supposed Him to be dead, as her words plainly show. However, Mr. Richardson gets around this difficulty by supposing that she was in a dazed con- dition; yet he admits that she ^'worshiped Him'' on the first occasion, which shows that she was not too dazed to recognize Him. Mr. Lewis got around the difficulty by supposing that Matthew's account changed from the first to the second visit between verses 8 and 9. If such supposing be taken for proof, then supposing will prove anything. Again Mr. Richardson says (page 17), ^^Late on the Sabbath the two Mary's witnessed the angel roll back the stone, which act revealed an empty sepul- chre. ' ' Then why did they wonder the next morning who would roll away the stone? (Mark 16 : 3.) On page 13, he says, ^^We can further prove that the Passover Sabbath did not fall on the weekly Sab- bath, and moreover, that Jesus was Hhree days and three nights in the grave, without reference to Matt. 12 : 40.' " Then he argues that, according to Mark 16 : 1, the women bought the spices after the Sab- bath, and according to Luke 23 : 56, they bought the spices before the Sabbath, and hence, that the Sabbath before they bought the spices must have been the Passover Sabbath, and the Sabbath after they bought the spices was the weekly Sabbath. The statement in regard to buying the spices, in Mark 16 : 1, may be taken parenthetically. And that SATUKDAY RESUKKECTION THEOKY 159 this was the judgment of the interpreters of the common version is shown in the words ^'had bought.'' (And this is the version from which Mr. Eichardson quotes.) The revised version leaves it equally capable of either rendering. Now Mr. Richardson can hardly enter an objection here, since he changed the comma in the 9th verse of the same chapter (to suit his theory) against the judgment of the interpreters of both the common and the revised versions. Mark 16 : 1,2 reads as follows: **And when the Sabbath was past, (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him.) And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.'' We insert the parenthesis merely to empha- size the parenthetical sense. If Mark had here meant the Passover Sabbath, he would certainly have so designated it, for he could not fail to know that his readers would understand him to mean the weekly Sabbath unless he otherwise designated it. For **the Sabbath" always referred to the weekly Sabbath unless otherwise designated. On page 4, Mr. Eichardson says, *^The Savior having given those words (Hhree days and three nights') as the ^sigii' or proof of His Messiahship, He would be proved untruthful, and therefore a * sinner,' if the sign failed, and it is manifest if He were a sinner our hope of salvation and eternal glory through Him must be worthless, and all preach- ing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ v^asted energy and^ 160 SABBATH THEOLOGY consummate folly. ^ ' According to the sense of this statement, Christ would be proved a ^* sinner/' in spite of the fact of the Eesurrection, if He did not fulfill the "sign'' according to Mr. Eichardson's interpretation of it. The proof of Christ's Messiahship is in the fact of the Resurrection, not in the "sign" of "three days and three nights." We must harmonize the "sign" with the fact, not the fact with the "sign." If our interpretation of the "sign" does not har- monize with the factyihat does not disprove the fact^ but only disproves our interpretation of the "sign." 0n this same point Mr. Lewis says (page 59 of his book), "Since Christ gave the length of time he should lie in the grave as a sign of his Messiahship, any failure in the fulfilment of that sign would have been noted and published by his enemies." But Mr. Lewis fails to observe that his enemies could not do this without at the same time acknowledging the fact of the Resurrection, — the real proof of Christ's Messiahship, — the very point they sought to deny (Matt. 28 : 11-13). We see from these two statements that Messrs. Lewis and Richardson base their arguments, not on the fact of the Resurrection, but on the sign of the "three days and three nights." This they lay down as the infallible basis with which all else must be made to harmonize. They should at least begin by proving their basis, but they merely take for granted as beyond question, that the full measure of "three days and three nights" is the original sense in which it was used, while in fact, as we have shown, the original sense of the expression, accord- SATUKDAY RESUERECTION THEORY 161 ing to the Jewish inclusive method of reckoning, does not necessarily contradict the generally ac- cepted theory that Christ remained in the grave from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Here then is no necessary contradiction; but we have certainly pointed out a few irreconcilable con- tradictions in Messrs. Lewis' and Richardson's at- tempts to make the Resurrection accounts harmonize with their theory of the ^' three days and three nights." The irreconcilable contradictions involved in attempting to prove a theory necessarily prove the counter theory, which, in this case, is the Friday evening to Sunday morning theory; for one or the other theory must be true. The direct and circumstantial evidence involved in the four accounts of the Resurrection, and the seven definite prophecies that He would rise on ^Hhe third day," together with the types which must be fulfilled in Christ as the great ' * Paschal Lamb ' ' and ^^Firstfruits of them that slept," determine the time between Christ's death and resurrection. This is the positive evidence. The expressions ^Hhree days and three nights" and ^^late on the Sabbath day" are, at best, uncertain as to their original sense. This positive evidence and uncertain evi- dence must agree in the time that Christ lay in the grave. Now is the sense of the positive evidence to be determined by the uncertain evidence? or, is the sense of the uncertain evidence to be determined by the positive evidence? Mr, Lewis makes out two visits of the women to 162 SABBATH THEOLOGY the tomb, but Mr. Eicliardson malies ont three visits from the apparent discrepancies in regard to the time and to the number of women as given in the different accounts. The four accounts of the Eesurrection were writ- ten a number of years after the event, and were based on the memory of eye witnesses. The all- absorbing fact of the Resurrection would naturally so absorb the attention that unimportant details would be almost unnoticed and leave but little im- pression on the memory. It is well understood by lawyers, that it is almost impossible for even the most reliable witnesses in court to agree in every small detail. The apparent discrepancies in the details of the different resur- rection accounts is the real proof of their genuine- ness and of the honesty of the writers. The slighest evidence that the accounts v/ere made up to harmon- ize would weaken the force of their testimony. Any more harmony of detail would only mean less weight of evidence. Infidels may point to these discrep- ancies of detail, but if it were not for these discrep- ancies, then they would point to the harmony as proof that the accounts were preconcerted fabrica- tions. They point to the discrepancies because they are looking for contradictions, not for evidence. \ The unmistakable note of genuineness and truth- fulness ringing through the testimony of each writer (including Paul) together with the Christian Sab- bath leading back in unbroken line to the event it- self, makes the Eesurrection the best attested fact in history. To deny the Eesurrection doctrine is to deny the honesty and truthfulness of the inspired SATUKDAY EESUEKECTIOISr THEORY 163 writers. If we reject tlieir testimony in regard to the Eesurrection, we cannot consistently accept their testimony in anything. John's Gospel was supposed to have been written about twenty or thirty years after the other three. It was written with a full knoAvledge of the other three, not to corroborate them, but to supplement them by relating additional facts and additional teachings of Christ. He carefully avoids repeating what the others have written, and only repeats when unavoidable. Hence, in accordance with the supple- mental character of John's Gospel, his resurrection account must be regarded as supplemental to the other accounts. Knowing that his readers were familiar with the other accounts, and that repeti- tion was unnecessary, he merely recorded additional incidents not recorded by the others. This fully explains why he mentions only the incident concern- ing Mary Magdalene and does not mention the other women. In supplementing the other accounts he tacitly recognizes and indorses them. Thus John's account of the Eesurrection is in full harmony with the other accounts. Mary Magdalene's name stands first in each ac- count. This alone tends to unify the accounts. The two Mary's are mentioned by Matthew, Mark and Luke. This further tends to unify the three ac- counts. Mark also mentions Salome ; and Luke men- tions Joanna, and also that there were other women. John implies also that there were other women in the word ^^we;" for Mary thus includes others when she said, '^We know not where they have laid Him" (John 20 : 2). The fact that Matthew and 164 SABBATH THEOLOGY Mark do not mention other women does not prove, nor even necessarily imply, that there were not other w^omen. Each would mention the names of those women from whom he gathered his evidence; and if the others added nothing to his testimony there was no reason Avhy he should mention them. Thus in regard to the number of women there is no real discrepancy. In regard to the time of the event, Matthew says, *^As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;'' Mark says, *^When the sun was risen;" Luke says, ^'At early dawn;" John says, ^^A^Hiile it was yet dark." These statements were necessarily based on the vague memories of the women years after the event. In view of their grief, and the one all-absorbing thought in their minds on their way to the tomb, and the confusion and excitement that fol- lowed, any impression as to the exact time would be vague at best. The chief actors in the battle of Waterloo differ by a number of hours as to the time when the battle began, but no one can deny that they all give account of the same battle. We may naturally suppose that the women started to the tomb as soon as it began to get light, ^^ while it was yet dark," and that when they reached the tomb, a distance of about half a mile, ^'the sun was risen." Or even if it was yet dark when they first reached the tomb, if they waited till Mary ran and brought Peter and John before they ventured to go into the tomb, then it was after sunrise when they entered the tomb. Latham {The Risen Master ^ page 225) says, "Twilight in that latitude does not last for more than a quarter of an hour." Therefore SATURDAY EESUKRECTION THEORY 165 the vague impressions that lingered in the memories of the different women might easily range from dark to sunrise. In regard to the angels, Matthew and Mark speak of one, Luke and John speak of two ; Mark and John speak of the angel or angels as sitting, Luke speaks of them as standing. Matthew says, ^' There was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it . . . and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.'' This was undoubtedly when Christ arose, and was sometime before the women came, for then Christ was already risen. This information Matthew (who alone mentions the guard) must have got from the reports of the guard, and not from the women. He evidently sup- poses, however, that it was the same angel that spoke to the women. It is not necessary to suppose that the angel was still sitting on the stone, nor that he was not inside the sepulchre, according to the other three writers, when he spoke to the women; for Matthew merely mentions the fact that he spoke to the women. Moreover, the angel's words, ^'Come, see the place where the Lord lay" implies that the occurrence took place inside the sepulchre. Luke and John mention two angels, and that they spoke ; but we would naturally understand, however, that one spoke for both, not that they both spoke at the same time, or that one spoke the same words after the other. Thus the attention of the women would naturally be directed to the one who spoke. Again, the angels were not together, but one at the 166 SABBATH THEOLOGY head and the other at the feet ''where the body of Jesus had lain.'' Mark says that the angel was *' sitting on the right side." This may be true, and yet at or near the head. Now the fact that the angels were somewhat apart makes it all the more probable that some of the women had their attention wholly absorbed by the angel who spoke, and thus some of the women would have the impression on their memories of one angel and others of two. When the women went into the sepulchre the angels were sitting, according to Mark. When the angel spoke, they probably rose and stood, according to Luke. And when Mary after- [wards stooped and looked into the tomb they were ;again sitting, according to John. Thus there is no necessary discrepencey in regard to the angels. Lastly, in regard to the two appearances of Jesus to the women, Mark 16 : 9 says that *'he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." This determines the order of the appearances. John 20 : 14-16 gives the account of this first appearing, and Matt. 28 : 9,10 gives the account of the second appearing. The har- monizing of these two appearances has been the chief point of difficulty. When the women came near enough to the tomb to see that the stone was rolled away, they would naturally be filled with a sort of uncanny fear .(especially as it was early), neither could they know that persons were not even then in the tomb. JSFow if we can determine w^hat women would most nat- urally do under the circumstances, we can be rea- sonably certain what they did do. The common sup- position, that they at once entered the tomb, is cer- tainly the most unnatural supposition possible. SATUKDAY EESUKRECTION THEOEY 167 We tliink tliat the most natural supposition would be that they would send one of their number in great haste after some of the disciples, and the rest would conceal themselves where they could watch, and then wait till the disciples came. So we find that Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and John, ''and they ran both together, '' and John outran Peter "and came first to the tomb;'^ but even he seemed to be afraid to enter the tomb till after Peter had en- tered. Thus it is probable that Peter and John were the first to enter the tomb after Jesus was risen. It would take them but a moment to satisfy them- selves that the body of Jesus was not there and it is probable that they remained in the tomb but a very short time. : Now when the women were told that the body of Jesus was gone, but that the linen cloths were still lying, their natural curiosity, emboldened by the example of Peter and John, would lead them to enter the tomb, at which time the angels appeared to them. They were filled '^with fear and great joy and ran to bring the disciples word." All this naturally occupied but a few moments, and Mary, not able to keep up with Peter and John as they ran, had not yet come to the tomb, but doubt- less met Peter and John on their return, who told her what they had discovered. In the meantime the other women, not knowing the way that Peter and John had gone, left apparently by some other way, as it does not appear that they overtook Peter and John or met Mary. Mary then came weeping to the tomb expecting to find the other women there ; and ^s she stood without the tomb weeping she stooped 168 SABBATH THEOLOGY and looked in and saw the two angels sitting, wlio also spoke to her, then as she turned Jesus met her and revealed Himself to her. And shortly after this He could have appeared to the other vromen, who as yet had not gone far. It is not even necessary to assume that the other women waited till Peter and John came, but it is only reasonable to suppose that they w^aited at least till they were assured that no persons were in the tomb, and even then that it would be some time be- fore their anxiety and impatience would overcome their fear sufficiently for them to enter the tomb. From this view they probably left but a short time before Peter and John came, and Mary may not have been far behind, and thus the comparative time of Christ's two appearances would not be materially changed. If it be objected that Peter and John did not see the angels who appeared to the women, it may be observed that this is only in harmony with John's own account, which clearly shows that Mary saw the angels after Peter and John had left the tomb. The message which the angels gave to the women to tell the disciples, and which Jesus also repeated when He met them, was that He was risen. This even Peter and John were not as yet fully assured of. Hence, we see that there is no real or necessary discrepency even in the details of the different re- surrection accounts, and that the apparent discrep- encies are but the mark of individuality which stamps each account as genuine. The July, 1912, number of The Sahhath Ohserver, SATURDAY KESUEKECTION THEOiiY 169 edited by Mr. Eieliardson, has an article on **Tlie Crucifixion Date, " by A. G. Marks, in which he says, **The early Christians undoubtedly considered that the date of the Lord's Crucifixion was the 14th day of the month Nison. From various sources we also find that it was in the year A. D. 31. The 14th Nison in A. D. 31 fell on Wednesday April 25th." For his proof that April 25th, A. D. 31, was on Wednesday, he refers to the astronomical tables of Wurm, as cited by Wieseler in his Synopsis of the Four Gospels. For his proof of the year A. D. 31, he refers to the Acts of Pilate and to the Fasti Idatiani, Then he cites three early writers, to the effect that March 25th was widely observed as the date of the Crucifixion. In conclusion he says, ^^ Nison 14th, Passover day — the day that Christ was crucified, falls variously between March 25th and April 25th." All this we will pass over without comment. We now come to his argument, that the 14th of Nison in A. D. 31, fell on April 25th (Wednesday). He says, *^Now the year 31 was an intercalary one, viz., one in which an extra month was added to the year, according to the Jewish Calendar. This hap- pened every three years. Had this year been an ordinary one, Passover time would have fallen a month earlier, and the 14th Nison, consequently, on March 25th, instead of April 25th, in which case it would not have fallen on a Wednesday." Where Mr. Marks gets his authority for this state- ment, he does not say; and it involves several as- sertions that call for proof. However, we will pass these by, as we only wish to show the falsity of his argument as based on his own assertions. 170 SABBATH THEOLOGY He plainly assumes that in ordinary years the 14th of Nison was on March 25th, but every three years it was advanced to April 25th, by the addition of the intercalary month. He evidently supposes that the intercalary month advanced the calendar one month; but this (instead of adding an inter- calary month) would be merely rotating the calen- dar by advancing it one month every three years, and thus rotating it clear around every thirty-six years. The intercalary month never took the place or name of any regular month (it would not be inter- calary if it did), but was added as an extra month at the end of the year whenever the lunar year fell about one month behind the solar year. Thus the intercalary month never advanced any date beyond its correct position, but only brought it up to its correct position after it had fallen behind. Mr. Marks says that the intercalary month was added every three years, which shows that he sup- poses the Jewish calendar to be lunar; for only the lunar calendar involves an intercalary month every three years. We have discussed the Jewish calen- dar in Chapter IV, but in order to meet Mr. Marks on his own ground, we will in the present argument assume that the Jewish calendar was lunar. The lunar year of twelve moons is 354 days, and hence falls eleven days short of the solar year of 365 days. Accordingly, Nison 14th would be correct once every three years : the next year it would fall eleven days behind; and the next year, twenty-two days behind ; and the third year it would be brought up again to its correct position by the addition of SATUEDAY RESURRECTION THEORY 171 the intercalary montli. Tims Nison 14tli would liave a range of twenty-two days. If Nison 14tli was on March 25th of the solar calendar in a certain year, then the next year it would fall eleven days behind March 25th or on March 14th, and the next year it would be twenty- two days behind or on March 3rd, and the third year, Nison 14th would be brought up again to March 25tli by adding the intercalary month. Or, if we assume that April 25th (instead of March 25th) was its most forward date, then April 3rd would be its most backward date. Or, if we as- sume that March 25th was its most backward date, then April 17th would be its most forward date. But in no case would March 25th be its most backward date and April 25th its most forward date as Mr. Marks assumes. Again, since the lunar calendar falls eleven days behind each year, in three years it would fall 33 days behind (or 34 days when leap year is involved) ; hence the intercalary month would be at least 33 days. From the year 46 B. C, the beginning of the Eoman solar calendar, March has always had 31 days. Then from March 25th to April 25th would be 31 days. Now if, as Mr. Marks evidently sup- poses, Nison 14th be advanced from March 25th to the full number of days in the intercalary month, then it would be advanced at least 33 days to April 27th; and if April 25th that year was on Wednes- day, as Mr. Marks claims, then the 27th would be Fridoiy. We have now met Mr. Marks on his own ground 172 SABBATH THEOLOGY and shown that his own assertions destroy his own argument at every point. Mr. Marks' article is practically endorsed by Mr. Richardson in pul^lish- ing it. Onr only apology for discussing the Wednesday Crucifixion and Saturday Resurrection theory is to show the character of the means resorted to in order to destroy the Resurrection testimony of the Christian Sabbath. CHAPTEE VIII. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ''For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it/* — Ex. 20 : 11. This is the Creation reason given for the Sab- bath. Seventh-day Adventists have called atten- tion to the fact that it contains the three elements of a seaL A seal must show three things : First, the 174 SABBATH THEOLOGY ne name of the person bearing authority; second, tL character of his authority; and third, the territory over which his authority extends. **The Lord made heaven and earth." Here God is the authority; Creator is the character of His au- thority; and the World (in the man sense applica- tion of the seal), is the territory over which His authority extends. Adventists claim that this makes the Sabbath the seal of God; but we must notice that the sense of a seal is only in the words ^'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth." Then the seventh day in which God made nothing but only rested can in no sense be a part of the Creation seal. As a memorial of Creation the Sabbath only points to the seal. Now the pointer and the thing pointed to cannot be the same. Whatever ratifies, confirms, or makes sure, car- ries the sense of a seal. Therefore the great seal of God's rightful authority is the fact of Creation which is ever before our eyes. ; We will, however, try to enlarge a little on the Adventists' idea of representing the seal of God, in a memorial sense, after the pattern of a common seal. A seal needs to be recorded. The record of God's seal is the fact of Creation. God's seal does not depend on any human court of record, and there- fore should carry its own record. Also, to be a memorial seal, its memorial character should be rep- resented. Thus, in addition to the three essential elements, we add the outer circle as the record of the fact upon which the seal is based, and the stars as THE FOUKTH COMIMANDMENT 175 representing its memorial character. The six stars at the center represent the six days of Creation. The hand points to the seventh day in which the Creator rested. The outer circle of stars rej)resents time divided into six-day work periods after the Creation model. The hands point to the Sabbaths or intermissions of rest without which it would be impossible to thus group the work days into memo- rial periods. The six Creation days with God's rest day fur- nishes the model, and each six work days followed by a day of rest is a copy, and thus a memorial of the Creation model ; for a copy, or imitation is the most effective reminder of the thing imitated, since it carries its memorial meaning in itself. The hands point also to the letter *^C,'' which stands for Creation; for the Sabbath is a memorial of Creation through the inseparable association of God's rest with Creation. The Creation, not God's rest, is the all-convincing proof of God 's right to the title of ^^The one only living and true God;" and reason would say that it is this proof of His rightful claim to man's worship that God wishes to hold be- fore the human race in the institution of the Sabbath. A seal represents authority; and when stamped upon a document, gives the authority it represents to that document. Thus in the v/ords ^'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth" it would seem that God has placed the seal of His authority upon the Decalogue, or ten Commandments, there- by giving them all the authority which His seal represents. 176 SABBATH THEOLOGY We notice further, that this seal is attached di- rectly to the Sabbath commandment. If this fact means anything, it gives to the Sabbath command- ment special importance; and this special import- ance is seen when we consider that just in propor- tion as people neglect the Sabbath they forget God, and just in proportion as they forget God they ignore His Law. This is the universal history of the Christian Sabbath, as well as of the Jewish Sab- bath. This fact does not argue that the Sabbath was abolished, nor that its moral nature was changed by changing the day. If the time circle of stars in the seal was unbroken, there would be in it no memorial meaning. If we were now to take out every eighth star or every ninth star, etc., it would not conform to the Crea- tion model, and therefore would have no meaning as a memorial of Creation. But when we take out every seventh star, we at once recognize a copy of the Creation model, nor would it make the slightest difference which star the every seventh count would take out. But the stars represent days. Now if the Sabbath is a memorial only in the sense of a regularly re- curring count from a fixed day, then an every eighth day count or an every ninth day count, etc., from that fixed day, would answer as a memorial of that day as well as an every seventh day count; but evidently, it would be entirely devoid of any mean- ing as a memorial of Creation, which proves that the essense of the Sabbath, as a memorial of Crea- tion, does not consist in its being a regularly recur- ring count from a fixed day. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 177 On the other hand, the every seventh day count, regardless of any fixed day starting point, is a dis- tinct memorial of Creation in its imitation of the Creation model ; nor would it make the slightest dif- ference in its memorial effect, on which day of the week the every seventh count fell, for in any case we cannot fail to recognize the Creation model: and just so long as we see in it the Creation model, it has accomplished its memorial purpose; which proves that the essence of the Sabbath, as a memorial of Creation, consists in the every seventh day count. We see therefore that the Sabbath contains two distinct memorial principles, — a fixed day principle and an every seventh day principle, — and that the essence of the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation is in the every seventh day principle, and not in the fixed day principle ; for the fixed day principle may be omitted without affecting the Sabbath as a me- morial of Creation, but the every seventh day prin- ciple cannot. Because of its two distinct memorial principles, the Sabbath is capable of being a double memorial, and therefore its highest memorial value consists in its double memorial meaning. The every seventh day principle, unassisted by the fixed day principle points clearly and unmistakably to the Creation; therefore the fixed day principle as a memorial of Creation is, to a certain extent, unnecessary and superfluous; and in so far as it is unnecessary or superfluous, the double memorial value of the Sab- bath is below its highest mark. The every seventh day principle is distinctive of Creation, for it can point to nothing else as its 178 SABBATH THEOLOGY origin; but the fixed day principle is not distinctive of Creation, for it may point to other events as its origin. Thus the Christian Sabbath is a memorial of Creation because it conforms to the Creation model in its every seventh day principle, and also a memorial of the Resurrection because it is a reg- ularly recurring seventh day count from that event. Similarly the Jewish Sabbath was a memorial of Creation in its every seventh day principle, and a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in its fixed day principle. We may notice here, that the Jewish Sabbath is a type of the Christian Sabbath in so far as the deliverance from Egyptian bondage is a type of the deliverance from the bondage of sin by the resurrec- tion of Christ. ^^If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins'' (1 Cor. 15 : 17). Is it unreasonable to suppose that God would use the Sabbath in its highest double memorial capa- city to commemorate the two all-important events in the world's history — the Creation and the Re- surrection? It would be unreasonable to suppose otherwise. Adventists stoutly affirm that the Christian Sab- bath is in no possible sense a memorial of Crea- tion, which is practically saying that a perfect imita- tion is in no possible sense a memorial of the thing imitated; for the Christian Sabbath, following six days of labor, is a perfect imitation of the Crea- tion model. At the same tim.e they say that baptism by immersion is the God-given memorial of the burial and resurrection of Christ. Therefore they recognize the principle that an imitation is a me- THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 179 morial of the thing imitated. Where now is their consistency? If baptism by immersion is a memo- rial of the burial and resurrection of Christ, then, on the same principle, the Christian Sabbath is a memorial of Creation. To deny one is to deny the other. If the Christian Sabbath is a memorial of Crea- tion, what objection can there be to adding the Re- surrection luster to the Creation luster, when the luster of each is undimmed by the other, and to- gether they redouble the splendor of the Sabbath luster by their combined luster? What does the proportion of rix days' work and one day rest commemorate if it does not commemo- rate Creation. If the Christian Sabbath in its con- formity to the Creation model is a reminder of the work of Creation, is it not then a memorial of Creation? But Adventists must stand by their theory regard- less of facts or reason, and therefore cannot, or rather will not, recognize any memorial principle in the Sabbath but the fixed day principle. Other- wise, they would be compelled to recognize the fact that the Christian Sabbath, in its every seventh day principle, is a memorial of Creation. Would not an every eighth day count from the Creation Sabbath be a regularly recurring memorial of the creation Sabbath in the fixed day sense, as much as an every seventh day count? In denying it Adventists must practically admit that the every seventh day prin- ciple is an essential memorial principle of the Sab- bath. Then we ask them, why is not the Christian 180 SABBATH THEOLOGY Sabbath a memorial of Creation? But **none are so blind as those who will not see.'' The Creation week occupies a place in thought separate and distinct from time. Each day stands out in bold relief. And in being thus a complete and perfect w^hole in itself, it meets all the require- ments of a model. We read in Gen. 2 : 3, **And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it : because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.'' Adventists (practically) interpret this pas- sage as if it read, ^'And God blessed the seventh day of every week of time, and sanctified them," etc. But it reads, *'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all His work." ^^It" is singular and cannot possibly be made to mean anything else than the one day on which God rested. Notice, also, that the words *'had rested" point backward, not forward, and therefore can have no reference to future time. This is an- other instance of how Adventists ^^just let the Bible interpret itself." A literal interpretation makes a passage mean exactly what it says — nothing more and nothing less. But why did God bless the seventh day and sanc- tify it? He must have had a purpose. The most fitting memorial possible of the six Creation days would, undoubtedly, be the dividing of all time into six-day periods, and God would use only the most fitting memorial. It mil be seen that an every seventh day of rest THE FOUETH COMIMAKDMENT 181 was absolutely essential to this end. It was abso- lutely necessary for the Creation model to have a contrasting element in it to define its limits as a model to be copied; and thus the six days of work and one day of rest became a repeating seven day cycle. Therefore **God blessed the seventh day and sanctified if to the completion of the Creation model. This absolute necessity of an every seventh day of rest to carry out His memorial purpose, was cer- tainly a sufficient reason for God's sanctifying, or setting apart, the day on which He rested to the completion of the model, and is in perfect harmony with the literal interpretation of Gen. 2 :' 3, making its meaning complete in itself. Each of the six days of Creation was sanctified, or set apart to its place in the Creation model, by the creative work done in it, but the seventh day required a special act setting it apart. The ele- ment of contrast needed to complete the Creation model was rest. There was no merit in the mere fact of God's resting except, as it served an end; and the only end it could possibly serve was in fur- nishing the contrasting principle necessary to com- plete the Creation model. Hence the rest day, or Sabbath, is, in a peculiar sense, the memorial prin- ciple in the Creation model, in that it is the essen- tial element by means of which time is divided into six-day periods pointing always to the Creation as the all-sufficient proof that God is ^Hhe only living and true God'' as distingTiished from all false gods. The Sabbath is, therefore, in a very real sense, 182 SABBATH THEOLOGY '^lioly unto the Lord/' as absolutely essential in carrying out His memorial purpose. God's true me- morial purpose was, undoubtedly, the dividing of all time into six-day periods commemorative of the six Creation days, and the Sabbath was but the means to that end. Again, we read in Ex. 20 : 11, ^'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: where- fore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.'' This is no part of the fourth commandment, but the reason given for it. As a reason given it carries the force only of a reason for, not a part of. We may look at it as a seal, but a seal does not affect the meaning of a law but only adds authority to it. The Creation week as a model fully satisfies the demand as a reason for working six days, and rest- ing the seventh. The copy can point to nothing else than the model as the reason for it, and the seventh day in the copy can point to nothing else than the seventh day in the model as the reason for it, but a fixed day can point to some other even as the reason for observing it. Thus, as a fixed day, the Sabbath! points to the deliverance from Egyptian bondage to the Jew, and to the Resurrection of Christ to the Christian, but, in either case, it points to the Crea- tion model as the reason why it is an every seventh day instead of an every eighth day Sabbath, or some other number. Would God in making the Sabbath a memorial of Creation be more likely to give a rea- son that could be perverted from its original pur- pose than one that could not? THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 183 We will now place Gen. 2 : 3 and Ex. 20 : 11 side by side for convenient comparison. Gen. 2 : 3. Ex. 20 : 11. *'And God blessed the ''For in six days the seventh day and sancti- Lord made heaven and fied it : because that in it earth, the sea, and all he had rested from all that in them is, and rest- his work which God ed the seventh day : created and made.'' wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath and hallowed it.'' These passages are the two main pillars on which the meaning of the Sabbath law rests. Everything pertaining to law must be interpreted literally. A literal interpretation assumes nothing. The first passage contains the plain statement that ' ' God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it : because that in it he had rested from all his work." Taken literally it means exactly what it says — noth- ing more and nothing less. The very fact stated nec- essarily completed the Creation model, for it fur- nished the contrasting element needed to define its limits as a model to be copied. This is a reason for blessing and sanctifying that fully satisfies the sense of reason. Why then go outside of the literal inter- pretation to find a reason that does not fully satisfy the sense of reason? Even if both reasons equally satisfied the sense of reason, yet, if they conflict in meaning, we must accept that which harmonizes with the literal interpretation, for everything pertaining to law must be interpreted literally. The second passage contains the plain statement that ''In six days the Lord made heaven and earth 184 SABBATH THEOLOGY and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.'* Notice particularly that God blessed the institution of the Sabbath, and not a fixed day of the week, for the word ^' Sabbath *' simply means rest, and does not, in itself, specify any fixed day of the week. Neither does the word ^'Sabbath'' in the law spec- ify any fixed day of the week. The law simply says, **The seventh day is the Sabbath '* — but any day after six is the seventh. Don't forget that a literal interpretation assumes nothing, and that law must be interpreted literally. Again notice particularly that literally the word ^'wherefore" refers to the entire preceding clause (because of its unbroken construction), including the entire Creation week presented as a model, as the reason for blessing the Sabbath. Now whatever complies Avith the conditions of the reason given sat- isfies its literal interpretation. Every one day in seven does comply with the sole condition of the Creation model and therefore fully answers the reason given. Hence, taken literally, neither the word *^ Sabbath," nor the connection in which it is used, specifies a fixed day of the week. But in order to sustain their fixed unchangeable seventh day of the week Sabbath theory, and while posing as the champions of literal interpretation, Adventists beg the question at every point by as- suming the very points that need to be proved. First, They assume that the word ^'wherefore" refers only to the seventh day on which God rested, whereas, literally, it refers to the entire preceding clause, including the six days of Creation as well as THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 185 the seventh day on which God rested. There is not the slightest ground for assuming that ^'wherefore'' refers to only a part of the preceding unbroken clause. The great memorial of God's authority is the fact of Creation, which therefore cannot fail to be the chief end to which the Sabbath as a memorial was intended to point. AVhy is it that Adventists can see nothing but the seventh day on which God rested as the reason for blessing the Sabbath? For this is necessarily what their fixed day interpretation resolves to. They admit, however, that God's resting implied a *' finished'' Creation, and that the seventh day on which God rested in turn points to the six days of Creation from which He rested. Then the real merit is in what the resting implies and not in the mere resting. But the fixed day principle points only to the mere fact of the resting, while the every seventh day principle points to what is implied in the rest- ing. Just as all that God's resting implies, stands in its following the six days of Creation, so all that the Sabbath implies as a memorial of Creation stands in its following six days of labor. An every eighth, ninth, or some other regularly recurring Sabbath could not be a memorial of Creation, be- cause it does not conform to the Creation model; but it could be a memorial of God's rest day, in the fixed day sense, if it were a regularly recurring count from that day. This show^s that the true me- morial principle of the Sabbath is in the imitation of the Creation model, and therefore that the entire Creation week as a model was the reason for bless- ing the Sabbath, 186 SABBATH THEOLOGY Second, They assume that in the two passages before ns (Gen. 2 : 3 and Ex. 20 : 11) that ^^ Sab- bath day" in the second passage is a mere substitute for ^^ seventh day" in the first passage. The first passage says, *^God blessed the ^seventh day:' " the second passage says, He blessed the ^^ Sabbath day." The word ^^ seventh" in the first passage re- fers literally to the day in which God rested and which completed the model: the word '^Sabbath" in the second passage refers literally to the institution which God established in accordance with the model. There must be a reason for changing the word *^ seventh" in Gen. 2 : 3 to ^* Sabbath" in Ex. 20 : 11, and this difference of meaning is the only reason that can be given. Tliirdy They assume that because God blessed and sanctified the seventh day on which He rested (Gen. 2:3), therefore, in and through that act, He blessed and sanctified every seventh day of the week to the end of time. Whereas, Gen. 2 : 3 simply states that ^^God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all His work." Hence it is by assuming, instead of proving, every essential point, that Adventists think to make Gen. 2 : 3 and Ex. 20 : 11 fix the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. Thus they make their theory the key to the interpretation of the Bible, while at the same time boasting that they **just let the Bible in- terpret itself." Adventists assume an argument in the definite article *Hhe" and pronoun *'it," as applied to the Sabbath. Thus, Mr. Andrews {The Sahhath and THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 187 the Law, p. 66) says, ** There is not one indefinite expression contained in this precept. It does not say *one seventh part of time,' it does not say, a ^seventh day,' it does not say a Sabbath after six days of labor . . . But it does say in plain terms, * Remember the Sabhath day to keep it holy; the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested the sev- enth day; the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it/ '^ (Italics his). It is a sufficient answer to point out the self-evi- dent fact, that the Sabbath as a definite institution calls for the definite article ^^the" and pronoun ^4t" just the same as if it were a definite day. The in- definite Sabbath institution that Mr. Andrews puts up to hurl his argument at is an imaginary target of his own making. He only attacks an assumed position which nobody holds. Besides, God fixed the day of the Sabbath by a special act of providence at the beginning of each dispensation, and hence it was a definite day during each separate dispensa- tion. Though not the same day in each dispensation, yet it would be the Sabbath day, even in a fixed day sense, in each dispensation. *^ Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,'' (Ex. 20 : 8). Adventists say that we cannot ^^keep holy" any thing that is not holy to begin with, which must mean that each Sabbath is holy while in the future, before it becomes present : Nothing can be said to be holy that has no existence ; and therefore, no day can be holy until it comes into existence; 188 SABBATH THEOLOGY and future duration before the day measure is ap- plied is no holier in one part than in another. There- fore no day is in itself holier to begin with than an- other ; but any day may be made holy by being set apart to a holy use, and we keep it holy by keeping, or observing it in the sense for which it is set apart. t '^Eemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work : but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle nor thy stranger that is with- in thy gates.'' — Ex. 20 : 8-10. This is the whole of the Sabbath law; and the reason given for it is, ^'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.''— Ex. 20 : 11. Notice particularly that the Sabbath law does not specify what day of the week is the Sabbath; for any day of the week is the seventh after the six preced- ing days. Neither does the Creation reason given, when interpreted literally, specify what day of the week is the Sabbath ; for any one day of rest after six days of work is in accordance with the Creation model given as the reason for blessing the Sabbath. Eemember that law must be interpreted literally. Even man-made laws do not leave vital points to be understood, inferred, or assumed. We cannot ex- pect less of God's law than of man's law. *'The law of God is perfect" (Ps. 19 : 7). But if the fixed day element of the Sabbath is a vital point, — ^yea, THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 189 an all-important point, — as Adventists hold, is it not a very serious defect in the law not to definitely ^x the day, beyond the possibility of dispute? (The fact that the day is disputed proves that it is not fixed beyond dispute). Can it then be called the per- fect law of God? If it could be proved that the original weekly cycle was lost, would that affect God's law in the slightest degree? It it could, then God's law is not perfect, in that it is dependent on conditions outside of itself. But perfection is God 's mark on all His works. Any interpretation of God's law that puts a limiting weakness in it, to that extent defaces God's mark of perfection, which seals it as His law. The second, third and fifth commandments also have reasons appended, but in no case do they limit or define the laws to which they are appended. Neither is the reason appended to the fourth com- mandment intended to limit or define the Sabbath law, but only to give the Creation reason for it and thus afiirm its memorial character. « '^The law of God is perfect": and the very fact that it does not in itself specify what day of the week is the Sabbath is positive proof that God did not intend it to be interpretated in any fixed day sense. Adventists argue that the expression, ^^The Sab- bath of the Lord," points to a fixed day, and that if different persons kept different days, these differ- ent days could not be spoken of collectively as ' ' The Sabbath of the Lord." But we must take into account the individual char- 190 SABBATH THEOLOGY acter of tlie law, for it speaks individually — ^Hliou," not ye — to each person as if he were the only per- son in existence, and says, ^^Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thp work; but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, ' ' and, as between him and the Lord, it is ^^The Sabbath of the Lord," whatever day he may keep, so far as the Sabbath law in itself is concerned. Man, however, is not an isolated creature. His interest and welfare are interrelated with others, so that a fixed day Sabbath becomes necessary to the highest welfare of all. But the fixed day element is an economic question, not a moral question. The moral law deals only with moral questions, yet the fixed day element is evidently necessary to the Sab- bath's highest value. Hence it must have been in- cluded in God's plan. But we must not fail to no- tice that God fixed the day in each case, not by the moral law, but by a memorable event in His deal- ings with man. Thus, God's rest after Creation, the Exodus from Egypt, and the Resurrection of Christ, each in turn became the basis or reason for the fixed day element of the Sabbath. The unchange- able every seventh day element of the Sabbath has its unchangeability in the unchangeable relation of God's rest day to the six days of Creation, and not in the mere event of God's rest- We have shown in the preceding chapters, that there are honest and sufficient reasons for believing that the first day of the week was the original Sab- bath. Adventists think they have honest and suffi- cient reasons for believing that the seventh day of ,the week was the original Sabbath.. ISTow, if we THE FOUBTH COMMANDMENT 191 have done nothing more than to establish the point that there are honest and sufficient reasons for a difference of opinion on the question, then these very honest reasons for difference would make it absolutely necessary for the Sabbath law to specify what day of the week was the Sabbath, if a certain day of the week were intended. Otherwise, the Sab- bath law would be uncertain in a vital point and w^ould lack the stamp of perfection which God puts on all His works, and fall even below the standard of man-made laws ; for man-made laws do not leave vital points to be understood, implied, or assumed. Who will dispute that God worded the Sabbath law to mean exactly what He intended it to mean- no more and no less? Deut. 5 : 22 says, ^^And he added no more." Who then will dare to add to it? Certainly it w^ould be presumption to attempt to change it in any way, either actually or in effect. To make the Sabbath law definitely specify the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, it would be necessary to insert the words *^of the week," after ^* seventh day," making it read ^^ seventh day of the week." This the Adventists do in effect. Of course they deny the charge, but the fact re- mains. They say that it is not necessary to make the insertion because the inference is unmistakable. Here they beg the question. Their inference is based on Gen. 2 : 3 and Ex. 20 : 11, and we have shown that their interpretation of these passages is a mere string of assumptions positively contrary to the lit- eral rendering. Will God judge men by the literal rendering of the law or by Adventists' interpreta- tion of it? 192 SABBATH THEOLOGY In practically adding to the law what God has not put there, Adventists are gnilty of the very crime that they charge to the Eoman Catholic Chnrch — they ^' think to change times and the law'' (Dan. 7 : 25. E. V.) — for adding the words ^^of the week" after ^^ seventh day" vitally affects the meaning of the law. It would change the day of the Sabbath now kept almost universally throughout the Chris- tian world. It would have the effect therefore of changing ^Himes" and God's *4aw" in a most vital sense. If the words *'of the week" were Intended to be understood, their omission would be consid- ered a vital omission even from the standard by which man-made laws are judged. We may safely lay down the following premises : God makes no mistakes; God makes no accidental omissions; God has a purpose in all that He does. If these premises are true, the omission of the words ^^of the week" in the Sabbath law was not accidental. If not accidental, it was intentional. If intentional, there can be no stronger proof that God did not intend the Sabbath law to be interpreted in any limiting certain day of the week sense. Can Adventists find any false step in this prop- osition, either in the premises or in the argument! If not they must accept the conclusion; and in ac- cepting the conclusion, they cannot escape the full force of the accusation in Dan. 7 : 25 (E.V.), of thinking to change times and the law." Of course, they insist that they do not insert the words *^of the week" in the Sabbath law, but they certainly dp insist that these words are understood, and so THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 193 interpret its raeaning, which is practically the same thing. They should be the last to condemn the ' Eoman Catholic Church for the crime with which they themselves are guilty. They should also be the last to condemn the Pope for claiming inf alibility ; for they practically claim infalibility for their theory — even to interpreting God's law by it. (CE : Creation Exodus) CHAPTER IX. THE DOUBLE MEMOEIAL JEWISH SABBATH '^For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the sev- enth day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it/' — Ex. 20 : 11. *^And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm : therefore the Lord thy God com- DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 195 manded thee to keep tlie Sabbath day.'' — Deut. 5 : 15. These are the two reasons given for the Sabbath. The first is appended to the fourth commandment in the Exodus copy of the ten commandments; the second is appended to the fourth commandment in the Deuteronomy copy. Each, therefore, stands in the same relation to the fourth commandment. Evi- dently, both cannot be in force at the same time with- out making the Sabbath a double memorial. But the Sabbath is capable of being a double memorial be- cause of its two separate and distinct memorial ele- ments : first, the every seventh day element ; second, the fixed day element. God's evident purpose in these reasons for the Sabbath was to remind of His power and rightful authority as the one only living and true Grod. This end or purpose is clearly seen in both reasons : in the first, as relating to all the world including the Israelites; in the second, as relating only to the Israelites. The second reason reminded the Israel- ites of what they saw with their own eyes, and would naturally therefore appeal to them more effectively than the first yet without diminishing the force of the first. Thus, by making the Sabbath a double memorial, its efficiency as a means to an end in the case of the Israelites was more than doubled. If God made the Sabbath a means to an end. He cer- tainly would not fail to make it a double memorial if thereby He could increase its efficiency as a means to an end. The day on which God brought the Israelites out of Egypt became to them their birthday as a nation, and therefore the most memorable day in their his- 196 SABBATH THEOLOGY tory. That this was the seventh day of the week even Adventists do not attempt to deny. Then the sev- enth day of the week Sabbath could most fittingly be a memorial of their Exodus from Egypt. It would certainly be the most natural and effective means by which God could constantly remind them of His "mighty hand and stretched out arm" that brought them out of Egypt, and thus cause them to recognize His rightful authority over them, which was evidently the end He had in view. For the Sabbath to be a sign between God and the Israelites (Ex. 31 : 17), it needed to be on a dif- ferent day of the week from the day observed by the surrounding nations. Otherwise, it would not be a "sign'' as it would involve no distinction. Now if Sunday, the day observed by the surrounding na- tions, was the day of the original Sabbath (see proofs in Chap. IV.), it would be necessary for God to change the day of the Sabbath to make it a "sign'' between Himself and His chosen people. We may read God's purpose in the fitness of means to an end. If God purposed to change the day of the Sabbath, He could have used no more fit- ting means to that end than the giving of the manna, for it met every condition that a change of day would call for : — 1. The divine power manifested in the giving of the manna was necessary in order to prove the di- vine authority of the change, for the day of the Sab- bath was undoubtedly regarded as fixed and un- changeable because of time-honored custom, and nothing short of means bearing the unmistakable mark of divine authority could have changed it. 2. The giving of the manna abolished the old DOUBLE MEMOKIAL JEWISH SABBATH 197 and established the new, in one and the same act, w^hich made it, in a peculiar sense, a fitting day changing act. 3. The fixing of the day of the Sabbath by the manna a number of days before the giving of the law, implies a change of day; for a change of day would make it necessary to ^^ prove them'' before giving the law, that there might be no confusion. A change of day would also increase the effective- ness of the proof as a test whether they would walk in God's law or no. (Ex. 16 : 4.) 4. The replication of the creation model, in giv- ing the manna six days and withholding it the sev- enth, implies a reaffirmation of the creation reason for the Sabbath, and, in turn, implies a change of day, making such reaffirmation necessary. Thus we see that the means used met every con- dition that a change of day would call for, and there- fore there is nothing in the giving of the manna to prove that the day was not changed. It will be admitted, that changing the day of the Sabbath after it had come to be regarded by time honored usage as fixed and unchangeable would bo much more difficult, and would require more extreme and positive means than to re-establish a day partly lost sight of through neglect. Therefore, if Sunday was the day of the original Sabbath, then some such positive means as the giv- ing of the manna was necessary to change the day. Now, if the day of the Sabbath was fixed and un- changeable from the beginning and had been wholly lost sight of through neglect, then the giving of the manna, as the means of re-establishing it, would not seem to be unfitting means to that end but if there 198 SABBATH q^HEOLOGY was a knowledge of the original day of the Sabbath, even by Moses and the leaders to whom the people looked for guidance, and no other day was regarded as of divine authority, so that there was no danger of any confusion in regard to the day, then the Sab- bath law, with its death penalty attached, would have been sufficient. It is an essential point with Adventists that God never permitted His Sabbath to be wholly lost sight of, and therefore they do not claim that it was wholly lost sight of by the Israelites during their bondage, but if the day was known at all, it was known at least to Moses and the leaders of the people. Adam, Lamech, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph: this short, direct, unbroken line reaches from Adam to the sojourn in Egypt. From the promise to Abraham in Gen. 12 : 3 to the giving of the Law on Sinai was 430 years (Gal. 3 : 16,17). From the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses was about 64 years (compare marginal dates). Moses, as the adopted son of Pharioh's daughter, was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians'' (Acts. 7 : 22), but, ^'when he was come to years, re- fused to be called the son of Pharioh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" (Heb. 11 : 24,25). This was evidently the result of his mother's teaching — who was employed as his nurse by Pharioh's daughter — and shows how faithfully the traditions of the Israelites were handed down from parent to child. If one of their cherished traditions was that the seventh day of the week was the only true Sabbath DOUBLE MEMOEIAL JEWISH SABBATH 199 of God, it is certain tliat that tradition was faith- fully handed down with the rest, and that they there- fore recognized no other day as of divine authority. It was only necessary that the leaders and teachers of the people had this knowledge of the true day of the Sabbath, for they decided all such matters for the people. Now if the day of the Sabbath was not changed, then, under these conditions, the giving of the man- na to determine the day of the Sabbath was mani- festly unnecessary. Adventists will deny that God used the manna as means to determine the day of the Sabbath, but hold that the manna was given to feed the Israelites and that God withheld the manna on the seventh day because of the existing sanctity of that day. If God had such regard for the existing sanctity of the seventh day of the week, why did He lead the Israelites out of Egypt and cause them to march all that day when He could as v/ell have timed the Exodus on some other day. Adventists insist that Christ had in mind the sanctity of the Sabbath when He said, in Matt. 24 : 20, ^ ' Pray ye that your flight be not ... on the Sabbath day." Then if the exodus of the Christians from Jerusalem on the Sabbath, at Christ's command, would have been a desecration of the Sabbath, surely the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt on the Sabbath would have been a much greater desecration. The Is- raelites numbered six hundred thousand men besides women and children, and also a mixed multitude, and flocks, and much cattle (Ex. 12 : 37,38). Com- pare this with the small number of Christians who fled from Jerusalem without driving any sheep or 200 SABBATH THEOLOGY cattle. The relative desecration would have been in the same proportion. Thus it will be seen that the existing sanctity argument is based solely on sheer assumption, for there is not the slightest hint in the record, pre- vious to the manna, that God regarded the seventh day of the week as more sacred than other days; and hence the giving of the manna does not fur- nish the slightest evidence that the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath before that time.. But on the other hand, God's evident change of attitude in regard to the sanctity of the seventh day of the week as between the Exodus and the withholding of the manna argues a change in the day of the Sabbath. In Ex. 16 : 4 God states his purpose in the man- na thus, ' ' That I may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no.'' Then God used the manna as means to an end aside from feeding the Israelites. The proving consisted in keeping the Sabbath (verses 22-29), which in turn necessitated fixing the day of the Sabbath, unless the day was already known. The pot of manna placed in the ark as a memorial kept for generations (verse 33), also, the manna gathered on the sixth day kept over to the Sabbath (verse 24) ; but on other days, if left over, it *^bred worms and stank" (verse 20). From which it is evident that God could just as easily have caused the manna to keep indefinitely as otherwise; and hence no definite manner of giving it was essential to the feeding of the Israelites. Therefore, while the manna in itself was for the purpose of feeding the Israelites, yet the manner in which it was given DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 201 was for the purpose of proving them in regard to the Sabbath. This proving was some weeks before the Sabbath law was given on Sinai. But keeping the Sabbath would have been a test of obedience after as well as before the Sabbath law was given if the day of the Sabbath was known. The unmistakable infer- ence is that the day was changed making it neces- sary to determine the day of the Sabbath before giving the law of the Sabbath, and therefore that^ God used the manna as means to that end. The manna was gathered early in the morning,*; for ^Svhen the sun waxed hot it melted" (verse 21). Then withholding the manna on the seventh day only removed an occasion for labor during a small part of the day; but removing an occasion does not en- force rest in any positive sense, but only leaves room for other occasions. Therefore withholding the manna on the seventh day was in no positive sense an enforcement of the Sabbath. The only pos- itive effect was to determine the day of the Sabbath. The Sabbath law with its death penalty attached was the only positive enforcement of the Sabbath. On other days than the Sabbath the left over manna ^^bred worms and stank." The question arises, v/as this the natural result or did it involve a purpose? In verse 19 Moses said, ^^Let no man leave of it till the morning." Here Moses clearly recognized that God's purpose in the manna re- quired that none be left over — except on the Sab- bath, as provided in verse 23. Then it is certain that God had a definite purpose in requiring that none be left over; and in the enforcement of that 202 SABBATH THEOLOGY purpose, the manna left over *'bred worms and stank. ^ ' What then was God's purpose in requiring that none be left over! The evident purpose was to prevent the people from gathering more than one day's supply at a time, which would have counter- acted, in a measure at least, any day determining application of the manna. No one, not blinded by theory, can fail to see that determining the day of the Sabbath was the ultimate purpose in the require- ment that none be left over. This purpose neces- sarily made the giving of the manna a day fixing means for determining the day of the Sabbath. Now if the Sabbath law in itself fixed the day of the Sabbath, as Adventists claim, then it was evi- dently not necessary for God to use other means to fix the day. Therefore the fact that God did use means outside of the Sabbath law to fix the day of the Sabbath is self-evident proof that the Sabbath law in itself did not ^x the day. Again, the fact that the manna was used as means for determining the day of the Sabbath in turn proves a necessity for determining the day, and this in turn argues a change of day in the very otherwise lack of necessity; for it is evident that there was no need to determine what day was to be the Sab- bath if the day already regarded as the Sabbath was not changed, even if the day was known only to Moses and the leaders to whom the people looked for guidance and no other day was regarded as of divine authority. Change of day then is the inevi- table deduction. In view of Ex. 16 : 4, Adventists are forced to DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 20."^ admit that the manna was given m order to prove the Israelites whether they would keep God's law or no. Can Adventists give any common sense reason why it was necessary to ^' prove them" before the Sabbath law was given on Sinai, if the day of the Sabbath was not changed? It certainly would have been necessary if the day was changed. Does not the fact imply that it was necessary to fix the day of the Sabbath before giving the law of the Sabbath? But why, if the day was not changed? And why, if the law of the Sabbath itself fixed the day of the Sabbath? Would not keeping the Sabbath be a test of obedience after as well as before the law was given, if the day was not changed? Change of day is therefore the only adequate explanation of the proving beforehand. Also, would not the rulers of the congregation (Ex. 16 : 22,23) have recognized in the double por- tion of manna on the sixth day a preparation for the Sabbath if they had known that the morrow was the Sabbath? Then why did they come and tell Moses? and w^hy did Moses have to tell them that the morrow was the Sabbath? The plain inference is that the morrow was not the day of the week that they had alwaj^s regarded as the Sabbath and that they did not yet understand that the day was to be changed. In verse 23 Moses said, ^^ Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Adventists say that this passage proves that the Sabbath was not changed by the manna, for the Sabbath there spoken of was the first Sabbath by the manna, and it was therefore the day on which, if at all, the 204 SABBATH THEOLOGY day of the Sabbath was changed, but it is spoken of on the day before as then already the Sabbath of the Lord. But the revised version renders it, ^* To-morrow is a solemn rest; a holy Sabbath unto Jehovah.'^ It is evident that the revisers would not have changed ^Hhe'^ to ^^a'' if the literal rendering had not demanded it ; and the change completely reverses the Adventists ' argument. Notice again, that in verse 5, God said that He would give a double portion of manna on the sixth day, and it is evident that the day of the Sabbath was then fixed in God's purpose; and in that sense could fitly be called the Sabbath of the Lord, even if in God's purpose the day was changed. But it was not yet the Sabbath in an applied sense : there- fore, in verse 23, it is fitly called a Sabbath. The change from ^*a Sabbath'' to "the Sabbath" is in verses 25 and 26, on the very day on which the change in the day of the Sabbath took place. If this point argues anything at all, it argues that the day of the Sabbath was changed. Thus the giving of the manna in itself, and all the circumstances connected with it strongly imply that the day of the Sabbath was changed. When some of the people went out to gather manna on the Sabbath, the Lord said, ^'How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws" (verse 28). Adventists say that this language implies a long con- tinued violation of the Sabbath. Very well, but the language is just as applicable to the institution of the Sabbath as to the day of the Sabbath, and does not argue that the day was not changed, unless, as DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 205 I Adventists assume, the institution of the Sabbath and the day of the Sabbath are inseparable, — a point which has already been discussed in preceding chapters. That the Sabbath contains two distinct memorial elements does not need to be proved, because the fact is self-evident ; for no one can fail to recognize in it both an every seventh day element and a fixed day element. While both are combined in the Sabbath, yet in themselves they are separate and distinct memorial principles ; for we can, in thought, change one without changing the other. The first, in and of itself, is a memorial of creation because it is distinc- tive of creation and can point to nothing else; and thus carries its memorial meaning in itself. The second can only be a memorial of creation in connec- tion with the first ; it can be changed and the Sabbath still remain a memorial of creation through the self- contained creation memorial meaning of the first. The two separate and distinct memorial elements of the Sabbath make it capable of being a double memorial; but it is evident that it is only the fixed day element that can point to anything else than the Creation. Therefore, to recognize the Sabbath as a double memorial is to recognize that its fixed day element may point to some other event than the Creation, and is, therefore, not necessarily an un- changeable element. This, of course, is fatal to the Adventists ' Sabbath doctrine, and hence they cannot accept the double memorial theory but must insist that the Sabbath is only a mem.orial of creation. Therefore, they deny, 206 SABBATH THEOLOGY in the face of Deut. 5 : 15, that the Sabbath was to the Israelites also a memorial of their Exodus from Egypt. (Another example of how they *^just let the Bible interpret itself.'') But they must explain Deut. 5 : 15, and the only explanation they can give, is that it was an appeal to their sense of gratitude. (See Andrew's Sahhath and the Law, pp. 55 and 78). Let us then examine Deut. 5 : 15. — ^'And remem- ber that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm : therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." This is plainly a command, not an appeal. A command and an appeal are distinctly contrary in their nature, so that there is no danger of mistaking one for the other. It begins with the word ^^ remember" — the same word with which the fourth commandment in Exodus 20 begins. The word '^therefore" applies the reason given to the fact for which the reason was given. It can only refer back to the reason just given which they were commanded to remember; and it can only refer forward to the fact that God commanded them to keep the Sabbath day, as the fact for which the reason was given. The simple fact that the Israelites were here coromanded to ^^Eemember," etc., as why God commanded them to keep the Sabbath day, necessarily made the Sab- bath a memorial of the thing they were to remember. Certain it is, that if God had meant it to be a me- morial of their Exodus from Egypt, He could not have said so in plainer words, unless He had for- mally stated that it was a memorial of their Exodus from Egypt; but He did not make such formal state- DOUBLE MEMOEIAL JEWISH SABBATH 207, ment even wHen He gave the Creation reason for the Sabbath. Now compare the creation reason given in Ex. 20 : 11 with the Exodus reason given in Deut. 5 : 15 : First, both are appended to the fourth command- ment and, therefore, stand equally related thereto; second, the meaning of one is as clear and unmistak- able as the meaning of the other; third, the advan- tage, if any, as a memorial reason, is in favor of the latter, in that it is a direct command to ^^ remember.'' We cannot suppose that God intended the latter reason to supplant the former, and, therefore, we must recognize both as memorial reasons existing together, and that the Jewish Sabbath was in a harmonious sense a double memorial. But to be a double memorial without discord or confusion of meaning, either reason must not detract in the slight- est degree from the other, and, therefore, each must be based on a separate and distinct memorial ele- ment. It is evident that the Sabbath can only be a me- morial of the Exodus from Egypt through its fixed day element, for its every seventh day element can only point to the Creation. But if the fixed day ele- ment may point to the Exodus from Egypt, then it does not necessarily point to the Creation. If it does not necessarily point to the Creation, it is not essen- tial to the creation memorial meaning of the Sab- bath; and if not essential to the creation meaning, the day of the Sabbath is not necessarily unchange- able. This is where the Adventists object, for they can- not recognize the double memorial theory without 208 SABBATH THEOLOGY recognizing that the day of the Sabbath may point to some other event than the Creation, and that the day of the Sabbath, therefore, is not necessarily fixed and unchangeable. But they cannot take Deut. 5 : 15 out of the Bible. They must, therefore, try to explain it to harmonize with their theory. They refer to a similar passage in Deut. 24 : 17,18, and say, that if Deut. 5 : 15 made the Sabbath a memorial of the bondage and deliver- ance, then Deut. 24 : 17,18 made acts of justice and mercy to the helpless also a memorial of the bondage and deliverance. True — but their argument only mocks them; for the very fact that God used every occasion possible to remind the Israelites of their deliverance from bondage, makes it doubly certain that He did not fail to use the most effective means (the Sabbath) to that end. They say again, that the yearly Passover was the God given memorial to the Israelites of their Exodus from Egypt. But Deut. 5 : 15 has plainly no refer- ence to the Passover, but to the weekly Sabbath. And because the Passover was a special yearly me- morial certainly cannot interfere with the Sabbath being a weekly memorial of the same event. Besides, the Passover was directly a memorial of the event to which the word ^^ Passover '^ refers, and not directly of their Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 12 : 24-27). The ^^even unto even" Sabbath was most fittingly a memorial of the Exodus in that the preparation for the Exodus began the even before. Now if, as we have shown in Chapter I, this was the true origin of the ^'even unto even'' Sabbath, we have another positive proof that the Jewish Sabbath was a memorial of the Exodus. DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 209 God gave two copies of the Law or Ten Command- ments; one spoken (Ex. 20 : 1), the other written (Ex. 31 : 18) : Ex. 20 : 3-17 is the record of the spoken copy. There is every reason to believe that Deut. 5 : 7-21 is the record of the written copy. Otherwise, there is no record of the copy written on tables of stone. The written copy was given more than forty days after the spoken copy; for after Moses had written the spoken copy (Ex. 24 : 4) God told him to come up into the mount and He would give him tables of stone and a law and command- ments (verse 12), and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights (verse 18), and when God had made an end of communing with him, He gave him two tables of stone, written with the finger of God, (Ex.31 :18). Therefore, the copy in Exodus 20 was not a copy of the one written on tables of stone, because it was be- fore, and a copy must be after. If the Deuteronomy copy is an exact copy of either, it must be an exact copy of the one on tables of stone, for it is not an exact copy of the Exodus 20 copy, as comparison will show. Immediately after the Deuteronomy copy Moses says, ^^ These words the Lord spake . . . with a great voice : and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.'' — Deut. 5 : 22. Moses could not have meant that these were the exact words that God spake with a great voice, for comparing them with Ex. 20 : 3-17, we see that this would not be true. He must have meant then that God spake these words in substance, not in the lettei, which w^ould have been true. 210 SABBATH THEOLOGY Neither could Moses have included the reason given for the Sabbath, for it was entirely different from the reason that God spake in Ex. 20 : 11, — but the reason for was not a part of the Sabbath law. Now, as referring only to the law in substance, Moses could truly say, ^^ These words the Lord spake, ' ' but in no other sense could he thus say with- out contradicting facts. ^'And he added no more": this is true (remembering that the reason given for the Sabbath is no part of the law), for the Deuteronomy copy adds nothing in meaning to the substance of the law. *^And he wrote them in two tables of stone.'' Now if the law written on tables of stone was an exact copy of the law spoken in Exodus 20, that fact would have clearly indicated to Moses that the exact word- ing of the law was fixed and unchangeable. Hence he would have been careful to quote it in the exact letter; and the fact that he did not quote the exact letter of the law as spoken, is strong presumptive evidence that the law as spoken by the voice of God and the law as written by the finger of God on tables of stone were not worded exactly alike, and that the copy in Deuteronomy is an exact copy of the latter, since it is not an exact copy of the former. All this implies that God gave first a general worldwide statement of His law, which of course in- cluded the Israelites, and that afterward He gave to the Israelites a special copy written on tables of stone and worded with special reference to His deal- ings with them ; and that the two copies are substan- tially the same ; except the reason given for the Sab- bath, — the first reason being worldwide in its appli- DOUBLE MEMOBIAL JEWISH SABBATH 211 cation, and the second reason applicable only to the Israelites. A general principle or law should always be stated before a particular application thereof is made, and therefore the very nature of the case called for a general statement of God's law before a special ap- plication thereof to the Israelites could be given. The Deuteronomy copy is supposed to have been written by Moses forty years after the law was given. During all these years he was the judge, interpreter, and executor of the law, and therefore he must necessarily have made the law a special study. Add to this the memory engraving manner by which it was given, and we can conclude with absolute cer- tainty that every letter of the law (in both copies) was engraven on his memory, and therefore he would most naturally have quoted either copy in the exact letter; for when the exact letter is fixed in the memory it is easier to quote the exact letter than otherwise, — besides the original copies were at hand to refer to if necessary. Hence there was not the slightest excuse for his writing and placing on per- manent record an inaccurate copy of the law; and we may therefore be sure that he did not, but that Deut. 5 : 7-21 is an exact copy of the law as writ- ten on the tables of stone. Moreover, the tables of stone were lost during the Babylonian captivity, about five hundred years before Christ and because God foreknew this, it is reasonable that He would cause a true copy to be placed on record. We read in Ex. 24 : 12, ^^And the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the mount, and be there : and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and 212 SABBATH THEOLOGY commandments which I have written ; that thou may- est teach them/' Here Moses is practically in- structed to teach the copy of the law written on the tables of stone. Now we read in Deut. 5 : 1, ^^And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, Israel, the stat- utes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.'' Then he speaks the Ten Commandments. And in accordance with his instructions in Ex. 24 : 12, he necessarily speaks the copy written on the tables of stone. Furthermore, it was not necessary again to record the spoken copy, for it was already written by Moses in Exodus 20; but the tables of stone were kept in the ark, and it was manifestly desirable to have a written copy for more ready reference. Finally, it was evidently not necessary for God to give two identical copies of the Ten Commandments. Then on the principle that God does nothing that is unnecessary, it follows that the two copies must dif- fer in some important particular; and if they dif- fered in some important particular, God would un- doubtedly cause a true copy of each to be placed on record. Since the only essential difference in the only two copies on record, is the reason appended to the Sabbath law, we must conclude that these rea- sons were each separately essential to God's purpose sufficiently to warrant two separate copies of the Ten Commandments. All these facts put together argue with conclusive force, that the copy of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5 is a copy of the Ten Command- DOUBLE MEMORIAL JEWISH SABBATH 213 merits as written on the tables of stone, and there- fore that the Exodus reason there given for the Sab- bath, and not the creation reason, was the one writ- ten on the tables of stone. Then instead of keeping the day of the original Sabbath as they fondly im- agine, Adventists keep the day fixed by the manna to commemorate to the Israelites their Exodus from Egypt, and hence only a Jewish ordinance. The Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath equally commemorate the Creation in their every seventh day element, but one commemorates the Exodus and the other the Resurrection in their fixed day element. (CR: Creation Resurrection) CHAPTER X. THE DOUBLE MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN SABBATH. The Creation reason for the Sabbath still remains, because it is unchangeable in its very nature. The Exodus reason ended at the cross ; for the de- liverance from Egyptian bondage had its antitype in the deliverance from the bondage of sin in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. — ^^If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free in- deed'' (John 8 : 36). Thus the reason which fixed DOUBLE MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN SABBATH 215 1 the day of the Jewish Sabbath was canceled; but an" all-sufficient day-fixing reason, in the Eesurrection of Jesus Christ, has taken its place. The former was appended to the fourth commandment as written on * tables of stone''; the latter is appended to the fourth commandment as written on the ^'fleshy tables of the heart.'' If we look into our own hearts, do we read there the reason given in Deut. 5 : 15 ! Or do we read, ^ ^ Re- member that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead" (2 Tim. 2 : 8) — ^^And de- clared to be the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1 : 4). — *^And if Christ be not raised, (our) faith is vain, (we) are yet in (our) sins. . . . But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept" (1 Cor. 15 : 17,20). (He) is ^^the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in (Him), though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11 : 25). — ^'For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. . . Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise us up also by Jesus" (2 Cor. 4 : 6,14). — ^^Wlio was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification" (Rom. 4 : 25). — ^^By him (we) do be- lieve in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory that (our) faith and hope might be in God" (1 Pet. 1 : 21).— ^^ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world 216 SABBATH THEOLOGY began. But is now made manifest hy tlie appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' ' (2 Tim. 1 : 9,10). — "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ'' (1 Pet. 1 : 3, E. V.).— "To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever" (Rom. 16 : 27) I Paul "preached . . . Jesus and the resurrec- tion" (Acts 17 : 18). — The "hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began'' (Titus 1 : 2). — "That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2 : 14,15).— "For if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom. 8 : 11). — "Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6 : 4). — "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him" (1 Thess. 4 : 14). We might quote many other passages. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the guarantee of the Christian's resurrection, and of eternal life. It is the proof that God accepted the Atonement made by Jesus Christ, and that therefore eternal life is promised to all those who will accept it through believing in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. — "For DOUBLE MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN SABBATH 217 . I by grace are ye saved tlirougii faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 3 : 8). This hope of eternal life through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was promised before the world be- gan: For we read, ^'In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world be- gan' ' (Titus 1 : 2). — '^ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 1 : 9). — ^^ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" (Epli. 1 : 4). — ^^ Which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God" (Eph. 3 : 9). — ^^But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blem- ish and without spot : Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1 : 19,20). — ^^The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13 : 8). These passages show plainly that the Redemption of man through Jesus Christ was planned by God even before the foundation of the world, and there- fore before the Sabbath, which was after the world was created. The Resurrection was God's seal of recognition and approval by which we know that the plan of Redemption through Jesus was from and of God. Without the Resurrection, the plan of Re- demption would be like a legal document without an official seal to make it valid. God created the heavens ^^by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33 : 6), but He redeemed the world by the sacrifice of His only begotten son (John 3 : 16) ; by which we see how much greater in the sight of 218 SABBATH THEOLOGY God is the work of Eedemption than the work of Creation. The world was created for man. God knew that man would fall even before He created the world; because He planned before the foundation of the world for man^s Eedemption. Therefore the Crea- tion itself, and all of God's dealings with man, had this one end in view, — the Redemption of man, — which (so far as the means was concerned) was com- pleted, sealed, and signed by God in the Resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection therefore was the climax of the plan of Redemption before the foundation of the world ; for God did not plan an in- complete Redemption. Now, did God, with the Redemption as the sole end in view for which all things were made, when He instituted the Sabbath, make it point only backward to Creation, and not also forward to Redemption? Since this conclusion would be unreasonable, and since it is only the first day of the week Sabbath that points to Redemption, we conclude that when God first instituted the Sabbath, he made it point for- ward to Redemption as the first day of the time week, and backward to Creation as the seventh day of the model week. At the beginning of the Jewish dispensation, the day of the Sabbath was changed to the seventh day of the time week, whereby it became a double me- morial, — pointing to the Creation through its every seventh day element, and through its fixed day ele- ment pointing memorially back to the deliverance from Egjrptian bondage, and typically forward through that event to the deliverance from the bond- DOUBLE MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN^, SABBATH 219 age of sin in tlie Eesurrection of Jesus Christ, — in whicli we observe the transition stage, from the typi- cal to the memorial, in its fixed day element. More- over, the Jewish Sabbath was the first day of the week in the original Jewish calendar, beginning in Ex. 12 : 2 (as shown on pages 114, 115), thus retain- ing its original typical meaning in a modulatory, or transition, sense till the Eesurrection; and still the Sabbath points typically forward to the soul rest in Christ and the final rest in heaven. God made the Sabbath (by changing the day) to be a sign between Himself and the Israelites (Ex. 31 : 17), thus making it a mark of distinction between them and the surrounding nations; but when God in Christ removed the distinction between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2 : 10-22), He removed tho sign of distinction and restored the original day of the Sabbath. God could have timed the crucifixion so that Christ would have risen on the seventh day of the week. "Why then did God thus honor the first day of the week above the seventh day, if the seventh was the day most entitled to honor ? The very fact that the Resurrection was on the first day of the week proves, in itself, that if one day of the week was more en- titled to honor than another because of God's rest after Creation, it was the first day of the week, and thus argues that the first day of the week was the day of the original Sabbath. In just so far as the Redemption was a greater work than the Creation, is the Resurrection a greater memorial event than God's rest after Creation, 220 SABBATH THEOLOGY which fact in itself would give the Eesurrection a pre-eminence over God's rest after Creation as an event to be commemorated, even if they were not on the same day of the week. The Resurrection was therefore in and of itself a sufficient reason for changing the day of the Sab- bath. Adventists ask, *^ Where is the authority for the changer' We ask, where is the authority for the change to the seventh day of the week? The only true answer is, * ^ The manna. ' ' Then we answer their question by pointing to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. God has never at any time fixed the day of the Sabbath by the moral law ; for the fixed day element of the Sabbath is an economic, not a moral question, and the moral law deals only with moral questions. God has therefore, always fixed the day of the Sab- bath by providence, not by moral law. And the mark of providence in the Resurrection is too clear to be mistaken. The Sabbath law does not — without assuming as understood the words ^^of the week" after ^^ seventh day'' — specify what day of the week is the Sabbath; and we can be sure that God left no vital point to be merely inferred, understood, or assumed, and that He made no accidental omissions. Let Adventists first prove, that the Creation days were twenty-four hour days, that time began with the first day of Creation, that God rested on the seventh day of the first week of timej that the day of the Sabbath was not changed by the manna, and that the fourth commandment fixes the day of the Sab- DOUBLE MEMOKIAL. CHKISTIAN SABBATH 221 bath. It will then be soon enough for them to ask, *' Where is the authority for the change to the first day of the week f Would God restore the day of sun-w^orship ? If He had not, Satan would have had a victory to boast of forever. Satan caused the true spiritual worship of God to gradually materialize into sun-worship by using the natural tendency of fallen man to use material objects to represent spiritual things, and thus use the sun, as the most fitting object in nature, to repre- sent God. He also used the ever increasing force of habit to retain the original day of the Sabbath. Thus he perverted the day of the original Sabbath to his own use ; and the first day of the week, which, as the first, rightfully belonged to God, he claimed as his own. God gave it up to him for a time, only to restore it all the more gloriously in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gave it up for a time only be- cause He could, by changing the day, better turn the hearts of His chosen people away from sun-worship back to Himself, and through them prepare the way for the coming of the Son of God. — ^'For this pur- pose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the deviP' (1 John 3 : 8). God can well bide His time, for Satan's temporary success only makes his final defeat all the more com- plete to the glory of God. But it was necessary for God to reclaim the first clay of the week as His own, otherwise Satan would have scored a permanent victory. To give up the Sunday Sabbath is to recognize Satan's authority 222 SABBATH THEOLOGY in recognizing his claim to it. No one is so ignorant as not to know that Christians keep the Sunday Sab- bath solely in commemoration of the Eesurrection of Jesus Christ, and without the slightest thought of sun-worship with it. And because this is a fact, there is no danger but that God recognizes it as a fact ; for the fact only is the real thing in the sight of God. Is there any danger that God, who knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, will attribute the worship of Christians on Sunday to the worship of the sun? Why then do Adventists try so hard to as- sociate the Christian Sunday Sabbath with pagan sun-w^orship, as if God was a mere word quibbler and that the word ^^ Sunday'' was offensive to Him be- cause it signified the day of the Sun? If God re- jects Sunday because it was the day of sun-worship, why did He honor it above every other day of the week by making it the day of Christ's victory over death! Are Christians responsible for the fact that the Eesurrection was on Sunday? Would any other day of the week answer as a memorial of the Resurrec- tion? Are Christians then to refuse to commemo- rate the Resurrection, on the only day possible, when God himself chose that day for the Resurrection? Do Christians worship the sun on Sunday any more than Adventists worship Saturn on Saturday? If the names of the days of the week serve as a means of reference, they answer their purpose, and their origin is a matter of absolutely no consequence. CHAPTER XL PENTECOST. In Acts 1 : 3-5 we read, that Jesus * ^ showed him- self alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God : and, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.'' And in verse 9, **And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.'' And in verse 12, **Then returned they unto Jerusalem. ' ' And in verse 14, ^ ' These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." Luke in his Gospel (24 : 53) says that they ^Svere continually in the temple, praising and blessing God." 224 SABBATH THEOLOGY Again, Acts 2 : 1-4, **And when the day of Pen- tecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place, And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- ance." Pentecost was always fifty days from the morrow after the Passover sabbath (Lev. 23 : 15,16). Christ's ascension was forty days after His passion (Acts 1 : 3). We conclude therefore that the disciples spent the greater part of each of the intervening ten days together (when not sleeping or eating) in prayer and praise, waiting for the promised bap- tism of the Holy Spirit, for they knew not on what day it would be. Now this waiting period covered more than a week. But only the seventh and the first days stand out from the others in their respective claim to recogni- tion as the Christian Sabbath, — waiting, as it were, God's seal, in the special honor of the descent of the Holy Spirit, which but one could receive. If the seventh day was the one perpetual unchangeable holy day, above all other days of the week, would God honor another day above it? The question now is, was the day of Pentecost that year on Sunday or Saturday? For Adventists claim, that as Pentecost was a fixed day of the year, it could not be a fixed day of the week, and therefore came on different days of the week in different years. PENTECOST 225 t And in order to meet them on their own ground, we will here accept their position. It is almost universally conceded, that the Pente- cost of Acts 2 fell on Sunday. Even the best au- thorities among Adventists have admitted it. Which fact, in itself, shows that the evidence is too strong to be resisted; for they certainly would not yield the point only upon the strongest evidence. Thus Elder U. Smith {The Sanctuary, pp. 283, 284) says * ^ The sheaf of firstf ruits was waved on the sixteenth day of the first month. This met its antitype in the resurrection of our Lord, Hhe firstf ruits of them that slept.' . . . Pentecost occurred on the fiftieth day from the offering of the firstfruits. The anti- type of this feast, the Pentecost of Acts 2, was ful- filled on that very day, fifty days after the resurrec- tion of Christ, in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon the disciples.'' Counting from the Eesurrec- tion Sunday (Adventists accept the fact that Christ was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday), the fiftieth day would fall on Sunday. Elder J. N. Andrews (in answer to Mede, Jen- nings, Akers and Fuller, page 56) says, ^^That the Savior was crucified on the day of the Passover, and that the fifteenth of the first month did that year come upon the Sabbath, we think to be true." The Passover sabbath was the day after the Passover (Lev. 23 : 5-7) and Pentecost was the fiftieth day from the morrow after the Passover sabbath (Lev. 23 : 15,16), w^hich would be the first day of the week. Some Adventists are loth to yield the point that 226 SABBATH THEOLOGY means so mucli, and still hold that the Pentecost of Acts 2 fell on Saturday. Thus Alonzo P. Jones {Rome's Challenge^ page 15, footnote) says, ^^Our Savior ate the Passover with His disciples the night before His crucifixion, and He was crucified on Fri- day. Friday, therefore, was the first day of the feast of the Passover, or of unleavened bread. The mor- row after that day was the day from which the fifty days to Pentecost were to be counted. Lev. 23 : 6, 11,15,16. The morrow after that day being the ' Sab- bath day according to the commandment' (Luke 23 : 56), and the first day of the fifty, it is evident that the fiftieth day itself would be not Sunday but Saturday. Anybody can demonstrate this for him- self who will begin with the morrow after any Fri- day and count fifty. And as the Passover was al- ways on the fourteenth day of the first months with- out any reference whatever to any particular day of the week, it were impossible that Pentecost should always be ^necessarily Sunday' as stated. Of course this note, true though it be, has no bearing on this question as between Catholics and Protestants, as both claim — the Catholic originally — that this par- ticular Pentecost was on Sunday. This note is in- serted merely in the interests of accuracy and not with the intention that it should have any bearing on the controversy in the text." Mr. Jones here poses as the champion of the 'in- terests of accuracy." Whether it is his theory or *' accuracy" that he is really concerned about will easily be seen when we examine the plain evidence of the Bible in the case. When they led Jesus to Pilate's judgment hall, PENTECOST 227 ^Hhey themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover'* (John 18 : 28). — Then they had not yet eaten the Passover. ^^And it was the prepara- tion of the Passover'' (John 19 : 14). ^'The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sab- bath day (for that Sabbath day w^as an high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away'' (John 19 : 31). ''There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day" (John 19 : 42). On the day after Christ was buried the priests re- ceived permission from Pilate to place a guard around the tomb, and Matthew says that this was on ''the next day that followed the day of the prep- aration" (Matt. 27 : 62). — Then the burial was on the day of the preparation. Mark says, that "when the even (of the day of the crucifixion) was come, because it was the prepara- tion, that is, the day before the Sabbath" (Mark 15 : 42), Joseph of Arimathea obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate and placed it in the tomb. Luke says, in regard to the day of the burial, ''And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on" (Luke 23 : 54). We have now the positive testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All these passages clearly show that Jesus was not crucified on the first day of the feast of the Pass- over (which was the Passover Sabbath), as Mr. Jones would try to make out, but, as the true paschal lanihj He was slain, as the type was always slain, 228 SABBATH THEOLOGY on the day of the preparation, which was the day be- fore the feast of the Passover, or unleavened bread, began. The Passover feast evidently could not begin till the paschal lamb was slain. The preparation day on which the paschal lamb was always slain was the 14th (Ex. 12 : 6), and the feast of the Passover, or unleavened bread, began on the 15th (Lev. 23 : 6). This was a Sabbath, for no servile work was to be done therein (Lev. 23 : 7), and was therefore called the Passover Sabbath. The fifty days to Pentecost w^as alway counted from the morrow after the Pass- over Sabbath (Lev. 23 : 15,16). Christ died on Fri- day, which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John plainly state was the day of the preparation. The next day (Saturday) was therefore the Passover Sabbath, and the next day (Sunday) was therefore the day from which the fifty days to Pentecost were to be counted. Now beginning with Sunday and counting fifty days, we find that Pentecost fell on Sunday. But Mr. Jones tries to make out that Friday in- stead of Saturday was that year the Passover Sab- bath, so that he can begin with Saturday instead of Sunday to count the fifty days to Pentecost, in order to make Pentecost fall on Saturday. If Mr. Jones were really concerned for the cause of accuracy (in- stead of his theory), why did he utterly ignore the above testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which plainly show that Christ was crucified on the preparation day, or the day before the Jews ate the Passover. Can he plead ignorance? — Hardly. Mr. Jones bases his arsrument on the fact that PENTECOST 229 Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples the night before His crucifixion. Jesus said to His disciples, ^^With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer'' (Luke 22 : 15). This then was why He ate it with them before His crucifixion. In John 13 : 1,2 we read, ^^Now before the feast of the Passover . . . and supper being ended," etc. Here John refers to the Lord 's Supper — which Jesus instituted immediately after eating the Pass- over — and plainly states that it was before the feast of the Passover. Could testimony be clearer than this? While Jesus ate the Passover the night before His crucifixion, still it was on the 14tli — counting from evening to evening. The paschal, or passover, lamb was to be slain on the 14th (Ex. 12 : 6), in the even- ing (marginal reference, ^^ between the two even- ings"). In Luke 22 : 7,8 we read, *^Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and pre- pare us the passover, that we may eat." Here ^^the day of unleavened bread ' ' is identified with the day that the ^^ passover must be killed" (therefore the 14th). Also, in Mark 14 : 12, ''And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, ''Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Pass- over?" And again in Matt. 26 : 17 (R. V.), "Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the Passover?" 230 - SABBATH THEOLOGY Mr. Jones evidently infers tliat the day referred to, as the first day of unleavened bread, was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread ; but it is here clearly identified as the day on which the Passover was killed, and therefore the 14th (Ex. 12 : 6), which was the day before the feast of unleavened bread began (Lev. 23 : 5,6). It was therefore the first day of unleavened bread only in the sense that it was the first day connected with the feast of unleavened bread ; for it was the day of preparation for the feast 'of unleavened bread. '^ISTow when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve" (Matt. 26 : 20).— ^' And in the evening He cometh with the twelve'' (Mark 14 : 17).— ''And when the hour was come, He sat down with the twelve'' (Luke 22 : 14). ''Hour" here can mean the hour appointed by Jesus. The word ' ' even " or " evening ' ' is indefinite, meaning any time after sunset, and does not pre- clude the idea that Peter and John were sent earlier in the same evening to prepare the Passover. The man to whom Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover, doubtless had every thing in readiness, for Jesus said, "He will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared" (Mark 14 : 15), and the paschal lamb was always taken up on the 10th '(Ex. 12 : 3), so that it would require but little time to make the necessary preparations. Now, counting from sunset to sunset, we see that the preparation of the Passover, the eating of the Passover by Jesus and His disciples, and the cruci- fixion could all occur on the 14th, which was the day "of the preparation, or "first day of unleavened PENTECOST 231 bread." Tlius we see that there is no contradiction in the fact that Jesus ate the Passover with the dis- ciples before His crucifixion, and that the positive testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ad- mit of no question that the day of Christ ^s trial and crucifixion was the day of the preparation for the Passover. Hence the following day (Saturday) was the Passover Sabbath as well as the weekly Sabbath, and Pentecost as the fiftieth day from the morrow after the Passover Sabbath would be Sunday. Moreover, the paschal lamb must be slain on the 14th day of the first month (Ex. 12 : 6). The even- of the same day was the Passover (Lev. 23 : 5), and the following day was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread and the Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23 : 6,7). Christ was the ^'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'' (Rev. 13 : 8). *'He is our Passover'' (1 Cor. 5:7). Christ fulfilled to the letter every type and shadow of the ceremonial law, hence He could not fail to ful- fil the type at the last great climax. Therefore, to fulfil the type, Christ, *Hhe Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1 : 29), must die on the day in which the paschal lamb was to be slain, and on the evening of which was the Pass- over. He died about the ninth hour (3 p. m.). Not a bone of the paschal lamb was to be broken (Ex. 12 : 46). ^'They brake not his legs . . . that the scripture should be fulfilled" (John 19 : 33-36). If the type must be fulfilled even to the very letter of the bones not being broken, it must certainly be ful- filled to the very letter in every other detail. 232 SABBATH THEOLOGY We read in Lev. 23 : 15, *^And ye sliall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering, ' ' etc. This sheaf was the firstfruits of the harvest (verse 10). But this sheaf of the firstfruits met its antitype in Christ, who was ' ' the firstfruits of them that slepf (1 Cor. 15 : 20). And since the antitype must fulfil the type, it must of necessity be that the fifty days to Pentecost be counted from the day on which Christ rose from the grave and became ^Hhe firstfruits of them that slept.'' This would bring Pentecost on Sunday. Pentecost commemorated the giving of the Law on Sinai, fifty days after the Israelites were come out of Egypt (Exodus 19). The Law was given on Sun- day; for the Israelites left Egypt on Saturday (as generally accepted), which was the 15th day of the first month (Exodus 12). They came to Sinai in the third month on the same (third) day of the month (Ex. 19 : 1), and on the third day after (verse 16). or the fifth day of the month, the Law, (Exodus 20) was given. This counts fifty days from the morrow after the Saturday on which they went out of Egypt, and hence was Sunday. Therefore, as a memorial, Pentecost pointed back to the Law, and, as a type, pointed forward to the great Pentecost of Acts 2, thus linking the Law and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and, in a sense, giving Sunday the recognition of the Law on the one hand and of the Holy Spirit on the other. Was the fact, that the giving of the Law and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit both occurred on Sun- PENTECOST 233 day, a mere coincidence! God has a purpose in all that He does. What purpose can be inferred ex- cept that it points to the restoration of the original Sabbath, and indicates that the Sabbath by the manna was only temporary. The outpouring of the gospel of Law on Sinai, fifty days after the deliverance from Egyptian bond- age at the Exodus, was typical of the outpouring of the gospel of grace, fifty days after the deliverance from the bondage of sin at the Resurrection. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to tarry till they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit ? Why did the Holy Spirit tarry if not for a purpose? and that purpose to fulfil the sense of the type. It was at Pentecost (on Sunday) that God opened the mouths of the disciples to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus and the Resurrection, thus, by precedent, sanc- tifying Sunday as the special day for the proclama- tion of the Gospel. On this Sunday Peter preached his first sermon, the burden of which was the Resur- rection (Acts 2 : 24-36), thus striking the keynote of the Gospel message that was to be carried to the ends of the earth. It is only the Resurrection Gospel that has God's seal upon it and God 's power in it, and that can con- vert the world. The Resurrection Gospel and the Resurrection Sabbath belong to each other. They cannot be separated. God blessed that Pentecost Sunday in the conversion of about three thousand souls (Acts 2 : 41), thus giving a firstfruits blessing on that day ; and His continued blessing on that day, above all other days of the week, in the conversion of souls for 1900 years, only confirms the fact that it 234 SABBATH THEOLOGY is the Sabbath day of God's appointing. Could the Christian Sabbath have a stronger or clearer mark of Divine authority? The Creation reason is still the reason why it is an every seventh day Sabbath. If the Resurrection luster can thus be added to the Creation luster, with- out dimming the Creation luster, God surely would not fail to do it. When the Jewish dispensation gave way to the Christian dispensation, it was only fitting that the Jewish Sabbath, or sign, should give way to the Christian Sabbath, or sign. The Jewish Sabbath, as the memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bond- age, can only point to the Jewish dispensation. The Christian Sabbath, as the memorial of Christ's vic- tory over death, and of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, can only point to the Christian dis- pensation. CHAPTER XIL SABBATH WITNESSES : DAVID — CHKIST — SPIEIT OF TRUTH. David's peophecy eegaeding the sabbath. **Tlie stone wMcli the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's do- ing: it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it'^ (Ps. 118 : 22-24). That this is a pro- phecy concerning Christ is proved by Christ in quot- ing it (Matt. 21 :42). In Acts 4 : 10,11, Peter says, ^^Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." No one ques- tions that ^Hhe stone" here refers to Christ. When was Christ set at nought by the Jews? — When they crucified Him. When did He become the head stone of the corner? — Undoubtedly on the day when God raised Him from the dead, and therebv 236 SABBATH THEOLOGY accepted and approved the sacrifice. Truly, ^^TMs is the Lord's doing: it is marvelous in our eyes." But David said, ^^This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.'' There is but one day that is in any sense connected with this prophecy, — and therefore the only day that David oould have referred to, — and that is the day of the JResurrection, on which Christ became the head stone of the corner. And it is the day above all others in which we should rejoice and be glad. The Resurrection is the reason of our faith, the ground of our hope, the pledge of our salvation. ^^If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor. 15 : 17). Truly then, ^'This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. " chkist's testimony eegakding the sabbath. Jesus kept the Jewish Sabbath till the crucifixion ; for He came to fulfil the law (Matt. 5 : 17) ; and He fulfilled the ceremonial law in all its types and sha- dows ; but it is very significant, that after His resur- rection there is no account of His honoring the Jew- ish Sabbath with His appearance on that day, — which is unaccountable if that were to Him the most sacred day of the week and therefore the most suit- able day for giving instruction to His disciples re- garding the Kingdom of God. But on the day of His resurrection He appeared ^ve times, and again ^ ^ after eight days, ' ' or the next Sunday — according to the Jewish inclusive method of counting time, i. e., including both the day from SABBATH WITNESSES '237 whidi and to wliicli the count refers. (See also the similar expression, *^ after three days/' in Mark 8 : 31, which refers to the resurrection as ^' after three days'' from the crucifixion, and must include both of these days, for the crucifixion was on Friday, and the resurrection on Sunday.) Adventists say that Christ kept the seventh day of the week Sabbath, and therefore we should follow His example. Christ also kept the Passover. Then, according to the example argument, we should keep the Passover. But Adventists recognize the Pass- over as only a Jewish ordinance pointing to deliv- erance from Egyptian bondage and ending by being fulfilled in Christ, who is **our passover." According to Deut. 5 : 15, the Jewish Sabbath also points to deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and is, therefore, a Jewish ordinance ending by hav- ing its typical meaning fulfilled in Christ. Christ kept the Jewish Sabbath to the end of the Jewish dispensation, which ended at the cross. And it is only His example after the Eesurrection that has any bearing on the Sabbath question now. Christ said, '^ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least command- ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matt. 5 : 17-19. 238 SABBATH THEOLOGY Christ must liere first have referred in a general way to the whole law, moral and ceremonial, for the words '*I came to fulfiP' necessarily includes the ceremonial law which He did fulfil. But that He afterwards referred distinctly to the Ten Command- ments is evident from His immediately commenting on several of them. The words ' ^ shall break, ' ' * ^ shall teach," ^* shall do'' are future in sense, and were evidently meant to apply to all future time, and necessarily refer to that part of the law that is per- manent and not ended in Christ's death. Purely moral laws are, by reason of their very nature, imchangeable while time lasts. The Ten Com- mandments contain the fundamental principles of the moral law, and are therefore, by way of distinc- tion, generally referred to as the moral law. The fixed day element of the Sabbath, however, is purely economic in its nature, and therefore cannot be a part of the moral law; which is the evident reason why the Sabbath law does not, in itself, specify what day of the week is the Sabbath. In pronouncing a loss on those who would not do and teach the commandments, and a reward on those who would do and teach them, Christ certainly meant that men should do and teach them to the end of time, and He certainly included all of the law that was not fulfilled and ended at the cross. He made no excep- tion in the case of the Sabbath law, and there is no Avarrant here for assuming, as some (not Advent- ists) do, that it was fulfilled and ended in Christ. Its moral nature is plainly seen when we consider the fact, that just in proportion as man neglects the Sab- bath he forgets God, and just in proportion as he SABBATH WIT I^ ESSES 239 forgets God he ignores His Law. The Sabbath com- mandment was put in the very heart of the Ten Com- mandments and cannot be separated from them. It was only the manna appointed day of the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath law, that was abolished. Christ said, ^Svhosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. ' ' Ad- ventists freely apply this censure to all those who do not keep and teach the seventh day of the week Sabbath. They should beware lest it applies nearer home in their perverting the meaning of the Sabbath law. Christ said, ^^The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2 : 27). We must interpret the Sabbath law in the light of these words. Man's highest good involves possible con- ditions and circumstances which are not necessarily fixed and unchangeable, and therefore it is possible that man's welfare under certain conditions and cir- cumstances can best be served by changing the day of the Sabbath, and hence, if the day of the Sabbath* were fixed and unchangeable, the reverse of Christ's words would be true, and man made for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man. Keeping the Saturday Sabbath, as Adventists do, under conditions that make it a yoke of bondage both socially and commercially, and involving the keeping of two days or violating the civil law, is certainly reversing the sense of Christ's words. While, in a general sense, the highest good of all requires that so far as possible all keep the same day, yet economic conditions make it practically im- 240 SABBATH THEOLOGY possible to stop all work on any one day of the week ; and therefore, because ^^the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," w^e are justified in concluding that the Sabbath is pliable, as to the day, to the necessity of the situation. Where it is absolutely necessary for the general good that some do not keep the day appointed, it would be according to Christ ^s teaching for them to keep some other day of the week, but all should be allowed to keep some day. For it has been well attested that a weekly Sabbath is for man's highest good — physically, men- tally, socially, morally and religiously — thus prov- ing the truth of Christ's words, that '^The Sabbath was made for man.'' Christ's statement, that ^^The Sabbath was made for man," is a recognition on His part that the Sab- bath law was a law of man's nature, and, as a law of nature, it cannot be abolished. In the next verse (Mark 2 : 28) Christ says, '^Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Christ here as- sumes the title '^Lord of the Sabbath"; and he gives as the reason for assuming this title, the fact that *^The Sabbath was made for man" : and, as the (one supreme) son of man. He has a right to the title. He is also Lord of the Sabbath because, as the Son of God, He instituted the Sabbath. Christ here definitely recognizes the Sabbath : first, as a necessary institution for man's highest good; second, in declaring Himself Lord over it. Do these facts imply that the Sabbath law was abolished, as some teach? When Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusa- SABBATH WITNESSES 241 lem, He told His disciples that wlien tliey saw the sign which He gave them, ^^Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. . . . But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For then shall be great tribula- tion, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be'' (Matt. 24 : 16, 20,21). The destruction of Jerusalem took place about forty years after Christ's resurrection, and there- fore Adventists think that this proves that the day of the Sabbath was not changed at least up to that date; for, they say, Christ must have had in mind the same Sabbath as existed at the time He uttered the words. But had He in mind the institution or the day! If the Sabbath was a fixed unchangeable day He necessarily had in mind the day; but if the Sabbath was not a fixed unchangeable day, then He neces- sarily had in mind the institution ; so that their whole argument here is based on the assumption that the Sabbath is a fixed unchangeable day. But if the as- sumption is untrue, then no argument can be based upon it. Again, had He in mind the sacredness of the Sab- bath day or the safety of His disciples! Christ taught that acts of necessity were not forbidden on the Sabbath. Therefore, if it was necessary to flee on the Sabbath to save their lives, and in obedience to His command, it could not in any sense be a dese- cration of the Sabbath. Besides, the exodus of the comparatively few Christians from Jerusalem would have been a proportionately far less desecration than 242 SABBATH THEOLOGY was the Exodus of the far greater multitude of Is- raelites from Egypt, with their ^'flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. ^ ' And that the Exodus from Egypt was on Saturday, Adventists do not deny. Therefore, he could not have had in mind the sacredness of the day. Hence He could only have had in mind the safety of His disciples. It is evident that He had their safety in mind immediately before, when he said, ^^Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter." Then the most natural conclusion is, that He still had their safety in mind when He added '^neither on the Sabbath Day.'^ This is further proved by the reason given, ^^For there shall be great tribulation,'' etc., which shows that He was thinking about the tribulation and suffering they would necessarily have to undergo, and therefore He directed them to pray that the winter and the Sab- bath might not add to their suffering by making their flight more difficult. But how would their flight be more difficult on the Sabbath than on any other day? The gates of Jeru- salem and also all the villages through which they would have to pass, would be closed and guarded; besides, traveling beyond the prescribed Sabbath day's journey (less than a mile) was a violation of the Jewish law. Their flight would therefore be more noticeable, and they would be more liable to suspicion and arrest. If their flight was noticed, they would be arrested as deserters and traitors. It would evidently be practically impossible for them to avoid suspicion on the Jewish Sabbath. The view, therefore, that Christ had the sacredness of the Sabbath in mind, would make flight on the SABBATH WITNESSES 243 Sabbath to save life, and at His command, a desecra- tion of the day, and thus stultify His own teaching when He said, ^ ^ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'' The view that He had the safety of Flis disciples in mind is natural, rea- sonable, and in perfect harmony with the context. If Christ did not have the sacredness of the day of the Jewish Sabbath in mind, then His words were in no sense a recognition of the sacredness of the day of the Jewish Sabbath at the time to which He re- ferred; but He simply used such words as His dis- ciples, to whom He was speaking, would understand. In the same chapter, Christ not only predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, but also events to the end of time. He certainly foreknew that the Sunday Sabbath would practically supplant the Jewish Sab- bath, as it has done. Now, if the Sunday Sabbatli was to be the ^^mark of the beast" and the greatest enemy of the Jewish Sabbath, and if its supplanting the Jewish Sabbath was one of the greatest calam- ities that ever befell the Christian Church, and if Christ had the sacredness of the Jewish Sabbath particularly in mind at this time, as Adventists as- sume, He would surely have warned His disciples of so great an evil as the Sunday Sabbath would have been, and thus have prevented them, to a large extent at least, from being deceived thereby. Christ foretold events of less importance — if the Sunday Sabbath were so great an evil. He warned the disciples against false Christs, false prophets, and false doctrines (verse 24) ; He surely would not have omitted any forewarning that would have 244 SABBATH THEOLOGY tended to their future safety and welfare. He said, ^'Behold, I have told you before'^ (verse 25), show- ing that their future safety and welfare was the pur- pose of His warning. Thus the context of the en- tire chapter contradicts the claim that Christ had in mind the sacredness of the day of the Sabbath when He said, ''Pray ye that your flight be not . . . on the Sabath day." Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, necessarily under- stood the true meaning of the Sabbath law ; and He did not regard the Sabbath as a fixed unchangeable day unless that was the true meaning of the Sab- bath law. But we can safely judge that God did not leave any vital point in the law to be merely inferred or understood; and, since otherwise the Sabbath law does not make the Sabbath a fixed unchangeable day, we are justified in concluding that that is not the meaning of the Sabbath law. Therefore, if Christ had the sacredness of the Sabbath in mind when He said, ''Pray ye that your flight be not ... on the Sabbath day," it was the sacredness of the institu- tion, not the day as apart from the institution, that He regarded. The Jewish Sabbath was according to the Sab- bath law, since it was an every seventh day Sabbath, and Christ therefore recognized it as such to the credit of those who observed it as such. This does not disprove the fact that the Sunday Sabbath was also according to the Sabbath law, and that Christ also recognizes it as such to the credit of those who observe it as such. Nor does it disprove the fact that the Sunday Sabbath was ordained of God at SABBATH WITNESSES ' 245 the Resurrection and sanctified at Pentecost, and that He meant it to become, as it has become, the universally recognized Christian Sabbath. God anointed David to be king over Israel many years before Pie removed Saul from the throne, but He began immediately to bring it to pass. God passed the death sentence on Adam more than nine hundred years before Adam died, but God began immediately to execute it. When God purposes to bring a thing to pass He begins immediately to bring it to pass, suddenly or gradually, as best serves His whole plan in all its manifold bearings. In the case of the Israelites, God purposed to make them a distinct nation and to prevent them as far as possible from mingling with other nations. In the case of the Christians, He did not purpose to make them a distinct nation but to mingle them with the world to leaven the world. In the first case, a sudden change of the day of the Sabbath would evi- dently best serve the end. In the second case, a gradual change (as regards the Jews) would evi- dently best serve the end. We see in both cases that God used means specially adapted to the end in view. Many of the Jews accepted Christ, and were still zealous for the ceremonial law (Acts 21 ; 20). Christ commanded His disciples to ^^ Preach the gospel" (Mark. 16 : 15). Acceptance of Christ was the all- important issue: recognition of the Resurrection day Sabbath was a secondary matter. The first was essential to salvation ; the second was not. To have ranked the Resurrection day Sabbath question as a 246 SABBATH THEOLOGY vital issue,, would have detracted from the one all- important issue, and thus largely have defeated the real purpose of the Gospel. It were better, there- fore, to leave the Sabbath day issue, with all other non-vital issues, to the guidance of the ^^ Spirit of truth/' who would gradually lead into all truth. THE SPIKIT OF TEUTH. Christ said, ^ ^ I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now (doubtless be- cause their prejudices and traditions). Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." — John 16 : 12,13. The Sunday Sabbath is almost universally recog- nized throughout the Christian world. Was this due to the guidance of the ^'Spirit of Truth"! or was it not? If not, then Christ's words were untrue. If only a small minority of Christians were led by the *^ Spirit of Truth" in regard to the Sabbath day, and the great majority led by the Spirit of Error, still the words of Christ would be more false than true. • Adventists are constantly asking the question, 'Svhere is the command for the first day of the week Sabbath"! We ask, where is the command for the seventh day of the week Sabbath? — They will an- swer, ^^The fourth commandment." But that is not true. The true answer is, ^^The manna." It was, however, to the Israelites equivalent to a com- mand in that it made the seventh day of the week the only possible Sabbath to them. But the fourtli commandment never has and never can ^x the day of the Sabbath; for no law can be justly enforced be- SABBATH WITNESSES 247 yond tlie limit of its strict letter. And tlie strict letter of the fourth commandment plainly does not fix the day of the Sabbath, since any day after six is the seventh. If the keeping of the first day of the week Sabbath was a vital matter, God certainly would have given a definite command to keep it — or the equivalent of such a command. Such a command would have made the first day element of the Sabbath a vital issue of the Gospel. The absence of such a command only proves that God did not intend it to rank as a vital issue. Because Jewish Christians did not immediately recognize the change in the day of the Sabbath, in the absence of any definite and positive command, did not alter the fact that it was changed in God's purpose. And it is easy to see the wisdom of God's plan in bringing about the recognition through the guidance of the ^^ Spirit of Truth" instead of by a direct command. This was true, not only in regard to the day of the Sabbath, but also in regard to circumcision and the rest of the ceremonial law; for the early Jewish Christians were ^^all zealous of the law" (Acts 21 : 20,21). Adventists admit that the ceremonial law was abolished and nailed to the cross (Colossians 2); but the whole ceremonial law was observed by the Jewish Christians for many years after. If, there- fore, the observance of circumcision, etc., after it was abolished, does not prove that it was not abol- ished, then the observance of the Jewish Sabbath after it was abolished, does not prove that it was 248 SABBATn THEOLOGY not abolished. Adventists cannot consistently deny the latter without denying the former. God did not abolish the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation, but He abolished it as a memorial of the Exodus, and made it instead a memorial of the Res- urrection. He did not change, or abolish, the institu- tion of the Sabbath, but only changed the day of its observance. He could still recognize the Jewish Sabbath, in the law sense, just as He would recog- nize any other every seventh day Sabbath, but not in its special providence appointed day sense. The Resurrection was the greatest providence ap- pointing memorial fact of all time. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the greatest providence appointing recognition act — the first as the reason for, the second as the authority for. God could have caused these events to have occurred on the seventh, instead of the first, day of the week. But the fact that He thus honored the first over the seventh day of the week necessarily gave the first day the higher rank in receiving the higher honor, and can mean nothing else than that God trans- ferred the seal of His authority from the seventh to the first day of the week. The Jewish Christians were zealous of the law because they believed that every ceremonial detail was appointed by God; and they did not recognize for a time the fact (which did not change the fact) that they were abolished in Christ. It is not surpris- ing, therefore that they were slow in giving up the Jewish Sabbath, as well as the other ceremonial rites, in the absence of any direct command annulling them. SABBATH WITNESSES 249 Still there is strongly implied evidence (as will be shown) that they also, in addition to the Jewish Sabbath, observed the first day of the week in com- memoration of the Lord's resurrection, and, there- fore, by way ©f distinction, called it the ^^ Lord's day." This is doubtless the origin of the term *^ Lord's dgiy," which has been handed down to the present time. The case of the Gentile Christians was quite dif- ferent. There is no evidence that they ever observed the Jewish Sabbath. Paul, the apostle to the Gen- tiles, firmly resisted every attempt of the Jewish Christians to fasten the ceremonial law of Moses upon them. CHAPTER XIII. SABBATH witnesses: PAUL — JOHN — LUKB. PAULAS TESTIMONY EEGAEDING THE SABBATH. At Antiocli in Pisidia Paul ^Svent into the syna- gogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down, and after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue" invited him to preach, which he did; and after the sermon, ^Svhen the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. . . . And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."— Acts 13 : 14,15,42,44. At Inconium he went ^^into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed." — Acts 14 : 1. At Philippi ^^on the Sabbath (he) went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made; and (he) sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." — Acts 16 : 13. At Thessalonica, ^^Paul, as his manner was, went SABBATH WITNESSES 251 in unto tliem, and tliree SabLatli days reasoned witli tliem out of the scriptures. ' ' — Acts 17 : 2. At Corinth, ^'he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.'' But when the Jews opposed, ^4ie departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house named Jus- tus, one that worshiped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. . . . And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." — Acts 18 : 4,7,11. These are all the texts where it is said that Paul preached on the Sabbath. From these texts Ad- ventists count up eighty-four Jewish Sabbaths that Paul kept. Seventy-eight of these, however, were during the year and six months that he remained in Corinth. But most of this time he preached in the house of Justus, and it is not said that he preached on the Sabbath after he left the Jewish synagogue > We can be quite sure that Paul preached whenever and wherever he could get a hearing. This will cut down their positive count to not more than ten or twelve. Paul evidently preached in the synagogue on the Sabbath because of the hearing it gave him ; for the Jews and Gentile proselytes congregated there on that day. If he had gone there on any other day he would have had no audience to preach to. Paul evidently would have done as he did, even if he had no special regard for the Jewish Sabbath. Hence there can be no argument here that he had any spe- cial regard for the Jewish Sabbath in so doing. The Jewish Sabbath presented the most favorable 252 SABBATH THEOLOGY opportunity of obtaining a hearing, and Paul would have been wholly devoid of tact if he had failed to take advantage of it. Moreover, Paul had a great desire to win the Jews to Christ because they were his ^^ kinsmen accord- ing to the flesh." In Rom. 9 : 2,3, he said, ^^I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.'' In 1 Cor. 9 : 20,22, he said, ^^Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. ... I am made all thing to all men, that I might by all means save some." And again, in 1 Cor. 10 : 32,33, he said, ^^Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God : even as I please all men in all things, not seek- ing mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." We see that Paul's one aim was to win souls to Christ; and in order to win, he was careful^not to offend. Paul kept the ceremonial law ; but he kept it in order not to offend the Jews, and thus cut off his access to them. He said, ''Circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor. 7 : 19), yet he circumcised Timothy; because, if he were not circumcised, the Jews would not hear him, *'for they knew that his father was a Greek", (Acts 16 : 3). It must also be borne in mind, that in those cities where Paul preached in the S3niagogue on the Sab- bath the Gospel of Christ had never yet been preached, and, therefore, there were no Christian churches, and Paul as a Jew would naturally go to the synagogue, and on the Sabbath day, for only on SAEBATH WITNESSES 253 that day would lie find an audience to preach to. These were, therefore, Jewish, not Christian as- semblies. The question is not, on what day did Jews meet to worship? but, on what day did Christians, as Christians, meet to worship? Not one single in- stance can be found where Paul preached to a Chris- tian assembly on the Jewish Sabbath, nor where the Jewish Sabbath is mentioned in connection with Christian meetings. But, on the other hand, there are instances where the disciples met on the first day of the week to hold religious worship. In those synagogues where Paul preached, we notice that as soon as the rulers of the synagogues learned the nature of his gospel they opposed and persecuted him, so that he, with the believers, had to withdraw to a private place of meeting. Often they had to hold their meetings secretly for fear of the Jews. More than once Paul had to flee for his life, and at Lystra he was stoned. Under these circumstances it was manifestly im- possible for the Christians to hold their meetings for Christian worship in the synagogue. That they had elsewhere places of worship is quite certain. 1 Cor. 11 : 17,18,20,33 ; 1 Cor. 14 : 23,26, and Heb. 10 : 25, show that they had places where they met for worship. The Jewish Christians were ' ' all zeal- ous of the law" (Acts 21 : 20), therefore, they would continue to attend the Jewish worship in the syna- gogue on the Sabbath as required by the Jewish law. They did this, however, as Jews, not as Christians. As Christians they evidently met by themselves in some other place than the synagogue. To have at- 254 SABBATH THEOLOGY tended all these services on tlie same day, if not im- possible, would certainly have been very burden- some. It is evident, therefore, that they met for Christian worship on some other day than the Sab- bath. That they would have selected for this pur- pose the first day of the week in commemoration of the Lord's resurrection is most natural; and that they , therefore, called it the ^'Lord's day'' to dis- tinguish it from the Sabbath, is too natural to ad- mit of any reasonable doubt. This is the only na- tural origin that can be given for the term ^^ Lord's Day," which is still applied to the Christian Sabbath. In Acts 20 : 6,7, we read, that Paul abode at Troas seven days, ^^ And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and continued his speech until midnight. ' ' We notice first, that though Paul remained an entire week at Troas, no mention is made of the Sabbath; second, that the reason given for their coming together was ^ ^ to break bread, ' ' — this shows that they would have come together for this purpose even if Paul had not been there, and, therefore, that it was their cus- tom. If their chief reason in coming together was to hear Paul preach and to bid him farewell, that, and not some other reason, would have been the reason given, in which case we might regard the meeting as a special farewell meeting, and not necessarily a regular weekly meeting. The ^^ breaking of bread" undoubtedly referred to the Lord's supper, and not to an ordinary meal. It SABBATH WITNESSES 255' \ is generally admitted by authorities that the early Christians partook of the ^^ Lord's Supper'' every week. We would infer, from the disciples coming together, that they lived in different parts of the city, and it is not likely that they met regularly to par- take of a common meal together. When Paul re- proved the Corinthians for coming to the *' Lord's Supper" hungry, he said, *^What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in "I (1 Cor. 11 : 22). So we conclude that the disciples had houses to eat and to drink in without coming together for that purpose. *^And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. (Acts 2 : 46). This is sometimes quoted to offset the Troas meeting by showing that coming together to break bread was a daily occurrence. But this was at Jeru- salem about one thousand miles distant from Troas, and about twenty-seven years before the meeting at Troas, and immediately after Christ's ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, when the disciples in their great enthusiasm, looking for the immediate return of their Lord, gave themselves up wholly to religious matters. They sold their pos- sessions (verse 45) and had all things common (verse 44) . In the very nature of things this condition could not and did not last long. Therefore, this case can have no bearing on the Troas meeting, which oc- curred in a distant city and twenty-seven years later. Adventists say, that as this meeting was at night, and as the day began at sunset, according to the Jewish count, it must have been on Saturday night, and, therefore, Paul went on his journey on Sunday 256 SABBATH THEOLOGY morning; thus showing that he did not regard Sun- day as a sacred day. Even if this were true, acts of necessity on the Sabbath were not condemned by Christ. The Roman method of reckoning time was from midnight to midnight. This method was imposed on all countries under Roman rule, in all civil matters. Troas had been under Roman rule for one hundred and eighty years ; it was nearly one thousand miles from Palestine, and, therefore, not dominated by Jewish influence. Luke was here writing to Theo- philus, a Roman living in Italy, and for Gentile read- ers; he was, moreover, himself a Gentile by birth. These facts make it almost certain that the Roman method of reckoning time, from midnight to mid- night, was here used ; and, therefore, that the meet- ing at Troas was on Sunday night. The apostle John, also, reckoned time by the Roman method ; for we read in John 20 : 19, ^ ^ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week. ' ' Here the evening of the first day of the week is reckoned as belonging to that day. We may go a step further, and state that the Bible always recog- nizes the natural fact, that the evening is the end (as the word implies), not the beginning of the day. We can safely challenge any one to find a verse in the Bible to the contrary. The contrary view can be traced to a misconception of the expression *Hhe evening and the morning" in Gen. 1 : 5, which, as we have shown (Chap. I) merely proves, in the re- verse of the natural order of the words, ** morning" and ''evening," that the Creation days were indejfi' nite periods.- SABBATH WITls^ESSES 257 In Lev. 23 : 5, we read, ''In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover." Here it is the even of the day preceding : a recogni- tion of the fact that the even belongs to the preced- ing day. And again, in the thirty-second verse, ''In the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.'' Here, not Gen. 1 : 5, is the origin of the "sunset to sunset" method of reckoning time. But the command itself recognizes the even as belonging to the preceding day in the words, "In the ninth day at even," and it would not change the sense to say, "from the even of one day unto the even of the next day shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." Celebrating an institu- tion does not determine the limits of the natural day. The word "even, or "evening," means, as uni- versally recognized, the decline or latter part, and it would be reversing its meaning to apply it to the beginning instead of the ending of the day. Evi- dently, from any hour of one day to the same hour of the next is a day's measure, and it is possible to measure time from any hour, but nothing can change the fact that the natural day is from midnight to midnight; for midnight is (with regard to increasing and decreasing limits) the beginning and ending of the "light which God called 'Day,' " and the Bible nowhere contradicts the fact. The ' ' even unto even ' ' Sabbath, in connection with the seventh day of the week, is, therefore, but a Jewish institution. It is plainly stated in Acts 20 : 7, that the meeting at Troas was on the "first day of the week." Paul preached until midnight, ready to depart on the mor- row. ' ' Even ' ' is from sunset until midnight. There- 258 SABBATH THEOLOGY fore, Paul preaclied on tlie first day of tlie week at even. Now compare with Lev. 23 : 5, ^Hhe four- teenth day at even/' Lev. 23 : 32, 'Hhe ninth day at even,'' John 20 : 19, '^the same day at evening," and any other passage, and it will be seen that ^^even" or *^ evening" of any day is always the end, not the beginning of the day. Therefore, the evening of the first day of the week would be Sunday evening, not Saturday evening. Furthermore, ^Hhe morrow" is the day after. Hence '^the morrow," or day after the first day of the week, would be the second day of the v/eek, or Monday, and the meeting was on the night before ^Hhe morrow," therefore Sunday night. There is absolutely no ground for the Adventists' argument, that the meeting at Troas was on Satur- day night and that Paul departed on Sunday morn- ing. The clear unmistakable inference in the case is, that the disciples regularly met on the first day of the week to partake of the Lord's Supper. In 1 Cor. 16 : 1,2, Paul said, *'Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Dr. Barnes says, ^^ There can have been no reason why this day should have been designated except that it was a day set apart to religion, and, therefore, deemed a proper day for the exercise of benevolence toward others." Dr. Clark says, *'The Apostle follows here the rule of the synagogue. It was the regular custom among the Jews to make their collection for the poor on the SABBATH WITNESSES 259 Sabbath day. ' ' Paul has already given this order to the churches of Galatia (verse 1). This collection was for the poor, and, therefore, an act of worship, *^a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God" (Phil. 4 : 18). As an act of worship it would fitly belong to the regular order of church worship on their days of meeting. ^'Let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." Adventists insist that this would involve an accounting of the business or labor of the preceding week to see how God had prospered them during that week. This would certainly be con- trary to all custom ; for the end of the working week is the natural and proper time to make an estimate of the result of the v/eek's work. Paul only refers to the act of laying by a due part of their week's gain (doubtless already determined) in store. The in- ference is, that before going to the place of Christian worship each is to take this amount out of his private treasury, and store it by him in readiness for the collection, which was doubtless part of their wor- ship just as it is in most Christian churches today. Again, Adventists insist that the literal rendering means to lay by in store at home. Evidently, the laying by would be at home, just as we lay by at home, before we start to church, a certain amount for the collection. If what they laid by, according to PauPs instruction, was to be kept in store till they met on the next seventh day of the week, then why did not Paul designate the seventh (or even the sixth), instead of the first day of the week to lay it by; for laying by a gift for the poor and putting it 260 SABBATH THEOLOGY in the treasury or collection on the Sabbath, would be in perfect harmony with the spirit of the day, and would not involve any appreciable amount of time, or interfere in any sense with other acts of wor- ship. Or, if each one was to lay by him in store till Paul came, then these separate contributions would have to be gathered together after Paul came; but Paul said, *^That there be no gatherings when I come." Then these amounts were to be gathered together before Paul came, and the most natural and, there- fore, most probable way would be to put them each week in the treasury, or collection, when they met weekly to worship. And in the absence of any other satisfactory reason, we infer that Paul designated the first day of the week because that was the day on which they met weekly for worship. This conclusion also accords with the known prac- tice of the church immediately after the time of the apostles, as definitely stated by early Christian writ- ers. Thus, Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) in his Apol- ogy, 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 memoirs of the Apos- tles, or the writings of the prophets are read . . . bread and wine and water are brought, and the presi- dent in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability, and the people assent, say- ing. Amen, and there is a distribution to each and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacon. And they who are well to do and willing give as each thinks fit : and what is collected SABBATH WITNESSES 261 is deposited with the president who succors the or- phans and widows/' Paul said to the Corinthians in regard to giving, * ' Therefore as ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also" (2 Cor. 8:7). Therefore, giving is a Chris- tian grace, which Paul classes with faith, utterance, knowledge, diligence, and love. And again in verse 9, *^For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he be- came poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. ' ' * ' God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3 : 16). *^ Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift" (2 Cor. 9 : 15). Therefore, giving is Godlike. ' ' God loveth a cheerful giver " ( 2 Cor. 9:7). * * As it is written. He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor; his righteousness remaineth for- ever" (verse 9). ^^He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord" (Prov. 19 : 17). ^'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25 : 40). Therefore, giving to the poor is giving to Christ and lending to the Lord. Surely, then, giving to the poor is an act of wor- ship well pleasing to God and in perfect accord with the spirit of the Christian Sabbath, and, therefore, rightly a very important part of the worship of God on the Sabbath. The only consistent reason that Adventists can 26'2 SABBATH THEOLOGY give, why Paul designated tlie first instead of tlie seventh day of the week for giving to the poor, is that the act is too mercenary in its character to be in accord with the sacredness of the Sabbath; but giv- ing, as an act of worship, is a ^^ sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (Phil. 4 : 18). Paul resisted every attempt of the Jewish Chris- tians to place the Gentile Christians under the bond- age of the Jewish ceremonial law. The matter w^as finally settled by a council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Circumcision as the initiatory rite (thus represent- ing the whole ceremonial law) was naturally the test issue; but that the whole ceremonial law was in- volved is shown by the decision, which was, ^^That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornica- tion'' (verse 29). We naturally conclude that all of the ceremonial law not included in the things men- tioned were passed over as not needful to impose upon the Gentile Christians. On the other hand, it is impossible to conclude that the four things mentioned in the decision included all of the law that was necessary for them to keep. Hence it is evident that the decision was not meant to cover the moral principles involved in the Ten Commandments, but only the ceremonial law, be- cause it only was under dispute. That ^^ Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day" (verse 21), was cited by James as the reason Avhy only the four things he mentioned SABBATH WITNESSES 263 were needful to insert in the letter of instruction to the Gentile Cliristians, thus implying that the Gen- tile Christians were already familiar with the law of Moses, and that the moral precepts were not under dispute. To hear the law of Moses read it would be neces- sary to go where and when it was read, and perhaps Gentile Christians often went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day for that purpose. But they cer- tainly did not go for Christian worship, since Jew- ish worship and Christian worship could not mix, and Christian worship was not tolerated in the Jew- ish synagogues. If not for Christian worship, then their going to the synagogues on the Sabbath day can furnish no argument that Christians met for Christian worship on that day. The fact that the Holy Spirit witnessed to the con- version of the uncircumcised Gentiles even as to the Jews (verse 8), convinced the apostles that the cere- monial law was not binding upon the Gentiles. They would naturally conclude, that if one ceremonial law was not binding on the Gentiles, then all were not binding. They doubtless, therefore, drew the line between Jew and Gentile at the ceremonial law. Now as the Jewish Sabbath commemorated the Exodus, according to Deut. 5 : 15, and was a sign between God and the Jews only (Ex, 31 : 17), the apostles could hardly fail to recognize the Jewish Sabbath as a distinctly Jewish ordinance, and, there- fore, not binding on the Gentiles, — especially as it was well known that Gentiles (except Jewish prose- lytes) did not regard the Jewish Sabbath. Owing to Jewish hostility. Christians as Chris- 264 SABBATH THEOLOGY tians could not worship and partake of the Lord's Supper in the synagogue ; more often they were com- pelled to hold their meetings in secret. But Jewish Christians could only keep the Jewish Sabbath ac- cording to the law by going to the synagogue where all the Jewish ceremonies were administered. Evi- dently they could not worship as Jews and as Chris- tians at the same time and place, or even on the same day without slighting one or the other. If they slighted their Jewish worship they could not be called ^* zealous of the law'' (Acts 21 ; 20). If they slighted their Christian worship they could not be called zealous Christians. The only possible thing that they could do, and, therefore, did do, was to worship as Jews on the Jewish Sabbath and as Christians on the Christian Sabbath, in which no doubt the Gentile Christians (where any) joined them. Gentile Christians, as Gentiles, could not fail to regard the Jewish Sabbath as a Jewish ordinance; for only Jews and Jewish proselytes kept it. As Christians they could not fail to associate the day commemorating their Lord's resurrection with the Gospel. If left to themselves, there can be no doubt which day they would choose. That the ceremonial law, consisting of distinctly Jewish ordinances, was not binding upon them as Gentiles, was a point for which they had always contended, and which was now decided in their favor by the council. We can be quite sure, therefore, that, unless they were Jew- ish proselytes, they kept only the first day of the week, or the Lord 's day, as it came to be called. The very circumstances involved in the case make the SABBATH WITNESSES 265 I I conclusion here drawn practically unavoidable to a fair-minded person. What Christians did as Jews has nothing to do with the question of the Christian Sabbath. It is only what Christians did as Christians that counts. Every mention of a meeting on the Sabbath was in connection with Jewish, not Christian, worship. It was manifestly impossible to hold distinctive Chris- tian worship in connection with Jewish worship. Paul said, ** Neither against the law of the Jews . . . have I offended anything at alP' (Acts 25 : 8), and ^*I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers'' (Acts 28 : 17). It was the law, and custom of ^ ^ the fathers, ' ' to keep the Jewish Sabbath, to circumcise, to offer sacrifices, to keep the feast days, etc. If we should keep the Jewish Sabbath because Paul as a Jew did, then, for the same reason, we should keep all the rest of the ceremonial law. But Paul tells us, that unto the Jews he became as a Jew that he might gain the Jews (1 Cor. 9 : 20). Then this was why he kept the Jewish Sabbath, and all the rest of the ceremonial law; for he himself taught that the whole ceremonial law consisting in ordinances was abolished. Thus to the Ephesians, concerning Christ he said, ^^ Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances'' (Eph. 2 : 15). To the Colossians he said, ^^ Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was con- trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." 266 SABBATH THEOLOGY i Because the Jewish ordinances, imposed by the ceremonial law, were blotted out and nailed to the cross, Paul says, ^'Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect to an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.'' (R. V. or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day.") Paul here includes the Sabbath days as among the things blotted out and nailed to the cross. Now, if * ^ the Sabbath days " ( or ^ ^ day, ' ' R. V.) here refers to the Jewish weekly Sabbath, and the Jewish ordinances are what is abolished, then that settles the point that the Jewish weekly Sabbath was a Jewish ordinance. By the Jewish weekly Sabbath is meant the seventh day of the week Sabbath as appointed by the manna (not the fourth commandment), and which (in its fixed day element) commemorated tho Exodus (Deut. 5 : 15), and which (in its fixed day element) was a sign between God and the Jews only (Ex. 31 : 17), and w^hich was, therefore, a distinctly Jewish ordinance in its every feature. The Sabbath, in its every seventh day element, commemorative of Creation, and appointed by the moral law, is moral in its nature and universal in its application and, therefore, not a Jewish ordi- nance. Adventists holding, as they do, that the seventh day of the week Sabbath was not a Jewish ordinance, but was appointed and fixed unchangeably by the fourth commandment of the moral law — which in its nature could not be blotted out — are forced to take the position that Paul referred in the text only to the annual Sabbaths. SABBATH WITNESSES 267 There are fifty-two weekly Sabbaths in the year and (according to Adventists) seven annual Sab- baths. Then the chances are more than seven to one that, by the unqualified term ^'Sabbath days," Paul meant the weekly Sabbaths. The references to the weekly Sabbaths in the Bible exceed those to the annual Sabbaths more than ten to one. Then the chances are more than ten to one that Paul meant the weekly Sabbaths. In view of the overwhelming importance and num- ber of the weekly Sabbaths over the annual Sab- baths, the unqualified term ^^ Sabbath days" would be justifiable if he meant the weekly Sabbaths, but not justifiable if he meant the annual Sabbaths. We must then conclude that Paul meant the weekly Sab- baths; unless there is positive proof that he meant the annual Sabbaths. But Adventists say that Paul states in the next verse what Sabbaths he refers to when he says, ^' Which are a shadow of things to come," as if he ]iad said, ^' Those Sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come," hence the annual Sabbaths. But it is evident that ^^ which" refers to the entire list, — meats, drinks, feast days, new m^oons, and Sabbaths, — all of which were a shadow of things to come. Besides, only with this view does the grammatical construction in the original agree. The word ^^ Sabbath "occurs sixty times in the New Testament, but this is the only place where Ad- ventists say that it refers to the annual Sabbaths. The annual Sabbaths are never elsewhere in the New Testament referred to by the word *^ Sabbath." — A remarkable exception this! We might well ask. 268 SABBATH THEOLOGY would they make this exception if their theory was not at stake? — Evidently not. Then is it the truth or their theory that they are really concerned about? ^'A feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day'' (R. v.). Note the order — yearly, monthly, Aveekly — and compare with 1 Chron. 23 : 30,31; 2 Chron. 2 : 4; 8 : 13; 31 : 3; Neh. 10 : 33; Ezek. 45 : 17; Hosea 2 : 11, where the same order (sometimes re- versed) is given, in all of which the word ^'Sabbath" is in the weekly part of the list. Paul evidently had the same order in mind. The annual Sabbaths were undoubtedly blotted out also, but they belong to the yearly, not the weekly part of the list, and are al- ways referred to in the New Testament as feast days. Adventists themselves acknowledge that the an- nual Sabbaths are included in the annual feast days. Thus J. N. Andrews {History of the Sabhath, page 86) says, ^'The annual Sabbaths were part and par- cel of their feasts, and could have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been instituted. ' ' Then Paul necessarily included them in the yearly part of the list when he said, ^^Let no man judge you in respect to a feast day (yearly), or a new moon (monthly), or a Sabbath day" (weekly) ; and, there- fore, by *^a Sabbath day," he could have referred to nothing else than the Jewish weekly Sabbath. The evidence from every point of view is too overwhelm- ing to admit of any reasonable doubt. It is all too evident that the real (though unac- knowledged) reason why Adventists will not accept the plain self-evident meaning of Paul's words, is that they consider their seventh day of the week SABBATH WITNESSES 269 Sabbath theory absolutely infallible, and, therefore, PauPs words must be interpreted to harmonize therewith. And thus, looking through their infal- lible theory glasses, they conclude that Paul must have referred only to the annual Sabbaths. In ^Eeplies to Canright' (page 26), referring to Col. 2 : 16, Eld. Canright (who renounced Ad- ventism after twenty-eight years) is quoted as say- ing, **I have often wished that this text was not in the Bible, and it troubles my Seventh-day Adventist brethren as much as it did me, say what they will. ' ' To which Eld. U. Smith replies, ^^We never had any trouble over this text, and we never knew a Seventh- day Adventist who had, till this surprising confes- sion. . . . There is scarcely a portion of scrip- ture in the New Testament simpler and easier to ex- plain than Col. 2 : 14-17. There is no question as to the *^ simplicity" of their explanation (simply, Paul meant the annual Sab- baths), but it furnishes, however, one of the most striking instances of how they ^*Just let the Bible interpret itself.'' In spite of their denials and show of confidence (to offset their doubts) we cannot avoid the conclu- sion that Mr. Canright was right. We read in Hosea 2 : 11, *^I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Paul doubtless had this prophecy in mind when he said, ^ ' Let no man judge you ... in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day." The words *^Let no man judge you" can imply nothing more 270 ' SABBATH THEOLOGY tlian tliat the former fixed day ordinance sense of the days referred to is no longer binding. ^'Her Sabbaths." — Adventists argue that the Lord's Sabbath is never called ^'her Sabbath/' and, therefore, ^Mier Sabbaths" refer only to the annual Sabbaths. This is only a mere quibble. Where does God call the annual Sabbaths ^'her Sabbaths"? How then do they know that ^'her Sabbaths" mean the annual Sabbaths I The Bible speaks of *^my offer- ings" and ^^your offerings," **my sacrifies" and **your sacrifies," ^*my house" and *'your house," **my law" and ''your law," ''my feasts" and "her feasts," etc. In each case referring to the same thing, though referred to in one place as "my" and in another as "your" or "her." There is then just as much reason for regarding "my Sabbaths" and "her Sabbaths" as the same. God said, "I gave them my Sabbaths." They are thus "her Sab- baths" because given to her (the Jews) and God's Sabbaths because appointed by him. Numbers 28tli and 29th chapters specify the offer- ings appointed for the whole year (daily, 28 : 3,4; weekly, 9,10; monthly, 11-15; yearly, 16-31 and 29 : 1-39), and whenever these same ordinances are referred to in the same order (direct or reverse), it cannot fail to denote the same distinction. Thus, "her feast days" (yearly), "her new moons" (monthly), then "her Sabbaths" must mean the weekly Sabbaths. Because the seventh day of the week Sabbath was only observed by the Jews and commemorated their Exodus, Paul recognized in it the characteristics of a Jewish ordinance ending with the rest of the Jew- SABBATH WITNESSES 271 ish ordinances, so far as the Gospel dispensation was concerned. John's testimony kegarding the sajbbath. John, in Rev. 1 : 10, said, ^ ' I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.'' It is almost universally conceded throughout the Christian world, that *^ Lord's day" here refers to the first day of the week, which, if true, would show that the first day of the week was designated by that term by the apostles themselves and by the early Christians of that time, and, there- fore, that the term *^ Lord's day" as applied to the Christian Sabbath, today, had its origin in the time of the apostles. Besides, the term *' Lord's day" can be traced from the present time back through history, step by step, century by century, to at least the second cen- tury, and without exception applied to Sunday. In addition to this, all the lexicons, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, without a single exception, give the same testimony. On the other hand, if John here referred to the seventh day of the week, or Jewish Sabbath, then it is the only instance, either in the Bible or in all his- tory, where the term Lord's day is applied to the Jewish Sabbath. These facts, which no one will attempt to dispute, put the overwhelming weight of evidence on the side of the first day of the week at the start; for there must be some good reason for all this one- sided evidence. Adventists realize that their infallible seventh day 272 SABBATH TEEOLOGY of the week Sabbath theory is here at stake, and with great show of assurance, — to supplement lack of sufficient evidence, — vainly attempt to prove that John referred to the seventh day of the week. J. N. Andrews {The Sahhath and the Law, page 154) says, * ' It is a remarkable instance of handling the word of God deceitfully when Rev. 1 : 10 is quoted as though it read, ^The Lord's day, which is the first day of the week.' " Has Mr. Andrews any better right to quote it as though it read, ^^The Lord's day, which is the seventh day of the week"? And does not Mr. Andrews quote the fourth commandment as though it read, *^Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day, which is the seventh day of the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"! Thus out of his own mouth he condemns himself of handling the word of God deceitfully. It is a case of * ^ Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Matt. 7 : 1,2). Again (page 155), Mr. Andrews says, *^If he designed to give a sacred title to a day never before designated as sacred in the Bible, it is remarkable that he did not tell what day of the week this new day was. And it is still more remarkable that when he wrote his gospel some years later, and had occa- sion therein to designate the first day of the week, he should call it by that plain title, and nothing else. ' ' First, If the term ^^ Lord's day" was here used for the first time, there would be some reason for John to designate what day of the week it was, but if it was a term in common use, as it evidently was, and well understood by those to whom he was writing. SABBATH WITNESSES 273 there would be no call to designate what day of the week it was. So Mr. Andrew's first point falls short. Second y In John's Gospel, which, as Mr. Andrews states, he wrote some years later, he used the word ** Sabbath'' eleven times and the term ^' first day of the week" two times; so if it is remarkable that John did not use the term *^ Lord's day" instead of *^ first day of the week," if the first day of the week was the Lord's day, then it is just fiVQ and one-half times more remarkable that he did not use it instead of the word ^^ Sabbath," if the Sabbath were the Lord's day. In the eleven times that he used the word ^^ Sab- bath," no definite reason can be given why he did not use the term ^^ Lord's day" instead, if true, for he could have done so in each case with as much pro- priety as in Rev. 1 : 10. But in the two cases where he used the term ^^ first day of the week" (John 20 : 1,19) there are good reasons w^hy he did not use the term *^ Lord's day" instead : 1. It would have been historically incorrect, for he was narrating the events of the day on which the Lord arose. While the term '^Lord's day" was in use at the time John wrote, yet it was not in use at the time of which he wrote. Then to have used it as if it existed at the time of which he wrote would have been an abuse of language. 2. Turn to John 20 : 1 and 19, and substitute *^ Lord's day" for *^ first day of the week," and it will be instinctively felt that the term ** Lord's day" is premature and unnatural, because it is so plainly evident that it could not naturally come so quickly into use. 274 SABBATH THEOLOGY 3. Christ predicted tliat lie would be put to deatli and rise the third day (Matt. 16 : 21 ; 17 : 23, 20 : 19). Now in recording the accuracy of the fulfilment of Christ's prophecy, John would most naturally and appropriately name the day of the week on which He arose. Thus Mr. Andrews' second point falls short. Adventists say, that the terms *' Sabbath of the Lord" (Ex. 20 : 10), ^'my holy day" (Isa. 58 : 13), ''Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2 : 28), imply that the Sabbath is the ''Lord's day," and, therefore, ^'Lord's day" in Eev. 1 : 10 means the Sabbath. It will be noticed, that all of these expressions are different in form, and that the question does not turn on the meaning of the expression "Lord's day," but on the origin of that particular form: a form which is never elsewhere used in referring to the Jewish Sabbath. Certainly the day on which our Lord rose victorious over death was more fittingly and truly the Lord's day than the day which com- memorated the Exodus from Egypt. Again we find the expression, "The day of the Lord," in Acts 2 : 20; 1 Cor. 1 : 8; 5 : 5; 2 Cor. 1 : 14; 2 Pet. 3 : 10,12, which clearly refers to the end of time. Adventists make no attempt to apply this expression to the Sabbath, yet the expressions, "Sabbath of the Lord," "Lord of the Sabbath," etc., imply that the Sabbath is the "day of the Lord" as well as the "Lord's day." Then the term "Lord's day" does not necessarily refer to the Jewish Sabbath any more than does the term "daj^ of the Lord." This shows that each SABBATH WITNESSES ' 275 distinct form of expression lias its own individual meaning. The *^ Sabbath of the Lord," in the fourth com- mandment, meant the institution of the Sabbath, not a fixed unchangeable day, and the institution of the Sabbath, therefore, was what Christ meant when He said, ^^The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." The seventh day of the week Jewish Sabbath, in its fixed day sense, commemorated only the Exodus from Egypt. The first day of the week Sabbath, in its fixed day sense commemorates only the Eesur- rection of Christ. Both, in their every seventh day sense, commemorate the Creation. Hence, in the fixed day sense, the first day of the week Sabbath only is the true *^ Lord's day." The fact that John did not specify what day of the week was the Lord's day, clearly implies that it was a term in common use and well understood. Will Adventists now argue, that the day which the Jews for nearly 1500 years invariably called the ^* Sabbath" was, in the time of John, commonly referred to as the ^^ Lord's day"? — Hardly. Then the term ^^ Lord's day" must refer to the first day of the week in recognition of the fact that the Lord arose on that day. The Christian Jews were *^ zealous of the law" (Acts 21 : 20), and, therefore, kept the Jewish Sab- bath as Jews. This necessitated their keeping some other day as Christians. Manifestly, the first day of the week in its memorial nature was the most suit- able day for that purpose. To have called it the Sabbath would have caused endless confusion, as the 276 SABBATH THEOLOGY Jewish day was known by that name; and to dis- tinguish it, they would most naturally call it the ^'Lord's day." This conclusion is too natural and self-evident to be resisted without doing violence to the sense of reason. John's using the term in Eev. 1 : 10, only confirms this conclusion. And the uniform testimony of the early Christian writers, both as regards the Jewish Christians keeping two days and the application of the term *^ Lord's day," still further confirms the same conclusion. In regard to the Christian Jews keeping two days, it is only necessary to notice, that evidently Chris- tian worship and Jewish worship could not mix and could not be at the same time and place, and that the Jewish worship necessarily occupied almost all of the available part of the Jewish Sabbath, so that there would be but little, if any, time left for Chris- tian worship; and any attempt to hold both Jewish and Christian worship on the same day would have proven too impractical to have long continued. Adventists themselves are forced to admit, in view of the uniform testimony of the early Christian writ- ers, that the Christian Jews did, in a manner, ob- serve the first day of the week, though they try to make it appear that it was not in a strictly Sabbath sense; and whatever of Sabbath observance on the first day of the week did exist in the early church, they attribute to the influence of the **man of sin," or the '* mystery of iniquity" which Paul said, *^Doth already work" (2 Thess. 2 : 3,7). But how do they know that it was not due to the guidance of the '^Spirit of Truth," which Christ said would guide them into all truth (John 16 : 13). SABBATH WITNESSES 277 Contrast the apparent blessing (only apparent, Adventists say) of the Holy Spirit on the first day of the week Sabbath, beginning with the Pentecost blessing down to the present time, with the apparent lack of blessing on the seventh day of the week Sab- bath, before attributing the guidance of the ^^ Spirit of Truth'' to the ''Man of Sin." Adventists could well hesitate, and ponder Christ's words regarding ''blaspheny against the Holy Spirit" in Matt. 12 : 22-32. Some others (not Adventists) hold the view that ''Lord's day" in Kev. 1 : 10 refers to the end of time or "day of the Lord." (See Rome's Challenge, pages 18-21.) The thought being that John was car- ried in the spirit to the end of time, so that he could look back on the world's history and read it as a book. This view is evidently based on the fact that the expressions "Lord's day" and "day of the Lord" mean the same in a grammatical sense; but as before stated, the question turns on the form of the expression, not on its grammatical meaning. "Day of the Lord" (Acts 2 : 20), "Day of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1 : 8), "Day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5), Day of Our Lord Jesus" (2 Cor. 1 : 14), "Day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1 : 6), "Day of Christ" (Phil. 1 : 10), "Day of the Lord" (2 Pet. 3 : 10), "Day of the Lord" (2 Pet. 3 : 12). These eight references, all of which were written more than thirty years earlier, refer plainly to the end of time. Then the expression, "Day of the Lord," would have been well understood by those to whom John was writing as referring to the end of 278 SABBATH THEOLOGY time, but a new form of expression would be likely to be misunderstood. It is almost certain then that if John referred to the end of time, in Eev. 1 : 10, lie would have used tlie form ^ ^ day of the Lord, ' ' which he knew would not be misunderstood ; for we cannot suppose that he wished to be misunderstood or that he was even careless in regard to making himself understood. A new form of expression almost surely indicates a new origin, for a form of expression soon becomes inseparably associated with the thing to which it refers, and thus becomes crystallized, and repetition and habit only make it more and more fixed. There- fore, the mere fact that **day of the Lord'' and ''Lord's day" mean the same in a grammatical sense, does not argue that they necesasrily refer to the same thing. But, on the other hand, the differ- ence in form does argue a different origin. The term '^ Lord's day" cannot refer at once, both to the Jewish Sabbath (as Adventists claim) and to the end of time, or ' ' day of the Lord, ' ' and there is just as much reason to refer it one way as the other, so far as its grammatical meaning is concerned. ^Vliich fact proves that the question docs not turn on the grammatical meaning but on the form. The voice, in Eev. 4 : 1, said to John, ''I will shew you things which must be hereafter." Then the things shown were to John as in the future. Hence, in the sense of the text, he was not in the spirit at the end of time, or *'day of the Lord." Again, the things shown passed before John in succession, not as if he were at the end of time and the whole scene lay before him in one panoramic SABBATH WITNESSES ^279 , yiew. Hence, Jolin could only nave been carried in the spirit to the time of each event in succession. Therefore, in Eev. 1 : 10, before he was carried even to the time of the first event, he could not have been in the spirit at the end of time, or **day of the Lord." When we notice the frequency of the expressions, ^'I saw,'' ^'I beheld," *^I looked," ^^I heard," etc., and how accurately and particularly he described the things he saw and heard, it is plainly manifest that he was present in spirit at the time of each event depicted. But he could not have been present in spirit at the end of time, and at the time of any one of these events, at one and the same time ; and, if he was carried in the spirit to the end of time at all, it was near the end of the Eevelation and not at the beginning. Therefore ^^ Lord's day" in Eev. 1 : 10 cannot refer to the end of time, or *^day of the Lord." Following this up by the practical certainty (as clearly shown) that the term * ^Lord's day" was in common use when John wrote Eev. 1 : 10, and that it has never since been applied to any other day than the first day of the week, and is still so applied, puts the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt that he referred to the first day of the week. LUKE 23 : 56. *^ And they returned and prepared spices and oint- ments ; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Adventists claim that this is a rec- ognition by inspiration that up to the time it was 280 SABBATH THEOLOGY written, some years after the Eesurrection, the seventh day of the week on which the women rested was the Sabbath according to the commandment, and, therefore, the Sabbath of the commandment. Of conrse they assume that the Sabbath command- ment fixed the day of the Sabbath, and, therefore, there could be but one Sabbath day according to the commandment. But this is the point at issue. Tak- ing for granted the sole point at issue is not argu- ment. There is no dispute in regard to Luke 23 : 56 : the only dispute is in regard to the taken for granted as- sumption that Adventists put into it. Luke 23 : 56 is a plain statement of the fact that the women rested on the Sabbath, and that resting on the Sabbath was according to the commandment, — a fact that no one thinks of disputing. If the Sabbath commandment did not, in itself, fix the day of the Sabbath, then any every seventh day Sabbath would be ^^ according to the commandment.'' The sole issue under dispute, therefore, is whether the Sabbath institution, so far as the command is involved, is an every seventh day institution or a fixed day institution, and this point has already been fully discussed. Luke 23 : 56 also clearly implies that the women rested on the Jewish Sabbath, because as Jews it had always been their custom, and that Christ by His example taught the sacredness of the Sabbath institution and gave His disciples no intimation, be- fore His death, that the day was to be changed. The Jewish Sabbath, as an every seventh day sabbath, was certainly acording to the commandment, and the women certainly rested on it because of the com- SABBATH WITNESSES 281, mandment. It was also tlie day of the Sabbath then in force by reason of the manna appointment, and the only Sabbath that they as yet knew anything about. The day could not be changed before the reason for the change (the Resurrection) existed. The women showed, by preparing spices and oint- ments, that they had no anticipation of the Resurrec- tion, and, therefore, they could have had no antici- pation of the Sabbath of the Resurrection. But Ad- ventists, in their strained effort to make an argu- ment out of this passage, assume, that if the day of the Sabbath was to be changed at the Resurrection, these women would have been duly informed by Christ in regard to the change. That Christ gave His disciples no intimation, be- fore His death, in regard to changing the day of the Sabbath, we freely admit. But, on the other hand. He failed to warn them of the change which He cer- tainly foreknew would come to pass, as it has come to pass. Christ warned His disciples, in Matthew 24, of less important evils, if the change in the day of the Sabbath was so great an evil as Adventists think. If the change in the day of the Sabbath in no sense affected the Sabbath commandment, and if it was best for the change to be brought about by the guidance of the ^^ Spirit of Truth," which Christ promised would lead them into all truth, then there was no occasion for Christ to give the disciples any; instructions in regard to the change. The fact that Christ gave neither instruction nor warning in regard to the change in the day of the Sabbath is strong evidence that He did not hold the 282 SABBATH THEOLOGY Adventist view, — that tlie Sabbatli commandment fixed the day of the Sabbath. Otherwise; there woukl have been need of instruction or warning, and He doubtless would have given one or the other, as the case required. If the Sabbath law did not fix the day of the Sab- bath, then Christ could not give a command chang- ing the day without giving a false interpretation of the Sabbath law; for such a command would be an acknowledgment that the Sabbath laAV fixed the day of the Sabbath. Moreover, such a command would have ranked the fixed day, or economic, element of the Sabbath as a moral element, which, if not a moral element, Christ had no intention of thus rank- ing it as such. CHAPTER XIV. SABBATH witnesses: eaely christia:^^ writers. These are not given to establish a doctrine, for many false doctrines existed among Christians even in the time of the apostles (Tit. 1 : 10-16; 1 John 4 : 13), but simply to prove the fact that the early Christians kept the Sunday Sabbath, or Lord^s day.'' A. D. 107. — Pliny's Letter to the Emperor Tra- jan concerning the Christians says, ^^They were wont to meet together, on stated days, before it was light, and sang among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as God." — Home's Introduction, Vol. I, Cliap. 3, Sec. 2, p. 84. Adventists say that this proves nothing because the day is not named. But the inference is too strong to be ignored. Why did they sing hymns to Christ as God if they had not met to worship Christ? Why did they meet before it was light" if not to com- memorate His resurrection? And on what day would they meet to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on Sunday before it was light. The rejec- tion of such unmistakable inference cannot be in the 284 SABBATH THEOLOGY interest of trntli, but in tlie interest of tlieory. TMs testimony was written only eleven years after John wrote Rev. 1 : 10, ^'I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. ' ' A. D. 120. — The Epistle of Baknabas, which is found in the oldest manuscript of the Scriptures and supposed to have been written between 107 and 126 A. D., says, *^ Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead.'' — Chap. 15. This was written about twenty-four years after John wrote Rev. 1 : 10. A. D. 125. — The Teaching of the Apostles (not written by the apostles). Chapter 14 says, ^^But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving. ' ' This was written probably about thirty years after John wrote Rev. 1 : 10, and, taken in connection with the other testimonies identifies the Lord's day with Sunday. It also harmonizes with Acts 20 : 7. A. D. 140. — Justin Maetyr, in his first defence, or * 'Apology," addressed to the Emperor Antonius Verus, Chapter 67, says, ''And on the day called Sunday, all Vv^ho live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apos- tles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. ' ' "And they who are well to do and willing give what each thinks fit, and what is col- lected is deposited with the president who succors the orphans and widows." A. D. 170. — DiONYsius, Bishop of Corinth in Greece, "We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter." — Eusehius' Eccl. History, SABBATH WITNESSES 285 Book 4, Chap. 23. 1 Cor. 16 : 1,2, concerning collec- tions on the first day of the week, was written to this church. A. D. 194. — Clement of Alexandkia (Egypt). "Pie, in fulfilment of the precept, keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an evil disposition, and as- sumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's Resurrection in himself." — Book VII, Chap. 12. A. D. 200. — Tertullian of Africa, *'We solemize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath." — Tertullian^s Apology, Chapter 16, "We, however (just as we have re- ceived), only on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil." — Tertullian on Prayer, Chap. 23. A. D. 225.— Oeigen of Egypt, "If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accus- tomed to observe certain days, as, for example, the Lord's day." — Origen against Celsus, Book VII, Chap. 22. A. D. 250. — The Apostolic Constitutions. "And on the day of our Lord's Resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God." "Otherwise what apology will he make to God, who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the Resurrection." — Sec. 7, par. 59. "On the day of the Resurrection of the Lord, that is the Lord's day, assemble yourselves to- gether, without fail, giving thanks to God." "On which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the Resurrection on the Lord's day." — Book VII, Sec. 2, par. 30. 286 SABBATH THEOLOGY A. D. 270. — AnatoliuSj Bishop of Laodicea, Asia. *^The solemn festival of the Eesurrection of the Lord can be celebrated only on the Lord's day.'' — Tenth Canon. ^'Our regard for the Lord's Eesur- rection which took place on the Lord's day will lead lis to celebrate it on the same principle." — Sixteenth Canon, A. D. 300. — ViCTOEiNus, Bishop of Petau. ^^On the Lord's day we go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by his prophets that his soul liateth, which Sabbath he in his body abolished." — Creation of the World, Sec. 4. A. D. 306. — Petek, Bishop of Alexandria. ^^But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy because on it He rose again," Canon 15. A. D. 324. — EusEBius, Bishop of Csesarea, Pales- tine, who is called the *^ Father of Church History," speaking of a small Judaizing sect who kept the Sab- bath, says, that they are ''those who cherish low and mean opinions of Christians." "With them the ob- servance of the law was altogether necessary, as if they could not be saved only by faith in Christ and a corresponding life." "They also observe the Sab- bath and other discipline of the Jews just like them, but on the other hand they also celebrated the Lord 's day very much like us in commemoration of His Eesurrection." — Eccl. Hist., pages 112-113. "On this day which is the first of light and of the true sun we assemble after an interval of six days and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all SABBATH WITNESSES 287 nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law which are decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath." **And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day as more honorable than the Jewish Sab- bath/' — Quoted in Justin Edwards Sabbath Manual, pages 126 and 127. *^The universal and uncontradicted Sunday ob- servance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it had its roots in apostolic practice." — History of the Christian Church, by Dr. Schaff, Vol. I, p. 478. *^For a time the Jewish converts observed both the seventh day, to which the name Sabbath contin- ued to be given exclusively, and the first day, which came to be called the Lord's day." ^^ Within a cen- tury after the death of the last apostles we find the observance of the first day of the week, under the name of the Lord's day, established as a universal custom of the church." — Johnson's New Universal Cyclopaedia, Art. Sabbath. ^^In the second century its (Sunday) observance was universal." ''The Jewish Christians ceased to observe the Sabbath after the destruction of Jeru- salem." — Schaff, Herzog Ency. Art. Sunday. ''The Lord's day existed during these two cen- turies as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of Scriptural Christianity. It was never defended; for it was never impugned, or at least only impugned as were other things received from the apostles." — Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art., Lord's Day. 288 SABBATH THEOLOGY Adventists throw as much discredit on the testi- mony of the early Christian writers as possible. Hence any admission from them as to their genuine- ness may be taken as conclusive. Andrews, who is acknowledged to be their ablest historian, makes the following admissions : — Concerning the writing of Barnabas, he says, that it *'was in existence as early as the middle of the second century, and, like the * Apostolic Constitu- tions,' is of value to us in that it gives some clue to the opinions which prevailed in the region where the writer lived ... he presently asserts the aboli- tion of the Sabbath.'' — Testimony of the Fathers, pages 21, 22. Concerning Justin Martyr, he says, **It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the an- cient Sabbath. He speakes of it as abolished, and treats it v/ith contempt." "We must, therefore, pro- nounce Justin a man who held the abrogation of the ten commandments, and that the Sabbath was a Jew- ish institution which was unknown before Moses and of no authority since Christ. He held Sunday to be the most suitable day for public worship." — Testi- mony of the Fathers, pages 33, 44. Mr. Andrews thus practically acknowledges the genuineness of the testimony of Barnabas (A. D. 120, or 24 years after John wrote Rev. 1 : 10), and of Justin Martyr (A. D. 140, or 44 years after John wrote Rev. 1 : 10), and the '^Apostolic Constitu- tions" (A. D. 250, or 114 years before the time that Adventists say the Catholic Church changed the day of the Sabbath). SABBATH WITNESSES 289 Certain it is that Mr. Andrews would not have made these admissions if he could have found any possible ground for disputing the testimony. We may, therefore, accept them as genuine, and if gen- uine, they trace the observance of Sunday to within twenty years of the last of the apostles. This, however, is easily explained by Adventists, for Paul himself said, in 2 Thess. 2 : 7, ^'The mys- tery of iniquity doth already work.'' It never oc- curs to them that this might possibly apply to their own Judaizing doctrine with which Paul had so much to contend, or to the spirit that is ever working to counteract the power of the Eesurrection. Stigma- tizing the great standing witness of the Resurrec- tion as the ^^mark of the beast" can certainly have no other origin. Again Mr. Andrews says, ^ ' The reasons offered by the early Fathers for neglecting the observance of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no spe- cial light on the subject by reason of living in the first centuries.'' — History of the Sabhath, page 308. In the first place, this only shows that the early Fathers held one doctrine and Mr. Andrews held another. In the second place, that Mr. Andrews claims to have special light on the Sabbath question that the early Fathers did not possess, which calls for proof not yet given. In the third place, it is a full acknowledgment that the early Fathers kept Sunday, which is the only question here under con- sideration. The first Sunday law was made by Constantine in A. D. 321 ; but the testimon}^ of the early Christian 290 SABBATH THEOLOGY writers, which we have given, were all before that date. Hence the early Christians could not have kept Sunday in recognition of a law not yet made, nor in recognition of the authority of the pope before any pope existed, nor in recognition of the Roman Catholic Church before any such church was a recog- nized authority; but they kept Sunday, as the testi- monies themselves state, in commemoration of the Resurrection of their Lord. Have not Protestants to-day the same risen Lord! Have they not the same reason and in- centive for keeping Sunday that the early Chris- tians had? Then, if they keep Sunday for the same reason, do they recognize thereby any State, Pope, or Church authority any more than the early Chris- tians did? CHAPTER XV. THE EESUEKECTION TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. The great justification of the Christian Sabbath is that it is a standing witness pointing the sinner to the Resurrection as the proof of Christ's power to save. The suffering and death of Jesus would have been of no avail if God had not accepted the sacrifice as sufficient, the proof of which is in the Resurrec- tion. It is God 's receipt to the world that Jesus paid the debt in full. Jesus suffered and died for a purpose. This pur- pose is the climax of the Gospel. The Bible must be interpreted in the light of it. All interpretations of scripture that conflict with it must go down before it. This does not mean that truth can contradict itself, but only means that no true interpretation will con- flict with the great purpose of Christ's suffering and death. Adventists say that God gave the only true me- morial of the burial and resurrection of Christ in baptism by immersion. That immersion, in its sug- gestion of burial and resurrection, is a memorial of the burial and Resurrection of Christ, at least to all who regard it as such, cannot be denied; but it in- volves belief in the Resurrection of Christ, and so lacks the element of inherent proof. While the Chris- tian Sabbath, in its regularly recurring count from 292 SABBATH THEOLOGY the event itself, carries the element of inherent proof. Then is it not a God-given memorial in the truest sense? What testifies for Christ cannot be against him (Mark 9 : 40). ^^All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him^' (John 5 : 23). Does the witness of the Christian Sabbath to the di- vinity of Christ, as proved by the Resurrection, honor or dishonor Him? The Christian Sabbath re- tains all that is worth retaining of the Jewish Sab- bath; only the Exodus memorial element is ex- changed for the Resurrection memorial element. *^God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son'' (John 3 : 16). Did God sacrifice so much in the Creation! Is then the fact of Creation greater in God's sight than the fact of Redemption? Does the Creation mean more to us than the Resur- rectioil? The Creation without the Resurrection would mean to us but a span of time and an unknown eternity, but the Resurrection means joy, hope and the assurance of eternal life. How barren of meaning to the sinner is the seventh day of the week Sabbath ! What hope is there even in the Creation memorial meaning of the Sabbath to the sinner 1 What hope is there in that which points only to law and judgment. The Christian Sabbath points to law and judg- ment on the one hand, in its every seventh day ele- ment, and to hope, mercy, and everlasting life on the other, in its first day of the week element. It convicts of sin on the one hand and offers pardon on the other. The seventh day of the week Sabbath sav- ors of the letter that killeth, and which Paul said was done away (2 Cor. 3 : 6-11). The first day of the RESURRECTION TESTIMONY 293 week Sabbath savors of the spirit that giveth life. The apostles preached the Resurrection with no uncertain sound, because to them it was an actual fact, for they both saw and touched the risen Lord. Nothing short of the actual fact could have changed those thoroughly disheartened disciples into uncon- querable martyrs, whose faith was tested by their blood. So in all ages the Resurrection has been the rallying point of faith. Genuine faith must have solid facts to stand upon. The solid rock of the Christian faith is the Resurrec- tion; and the Christian Sabbath is one of the solid facts that attest it. The Resurrection is the reason of our faith, the ground of our hope, and the pledge of our salvation. The Gospel of the Resurrection is the only Gospel that will convert the world, for it is the only Gospel that is backed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of the Resurrection and the Sabbath of the Resurrection belong to each other. They cannot be separated. Wherever the Gospel of the Resurrec- tion has gone, the Resurrection-day Sabbath has gone; and the Holy Spirit has ever put the seal of His blessing upon it. It is not possible for an ignor- ant misconception of the Sabbath to have been uni- formly and continuously marked with the seal of di- vine approval through 1900 years. The power of the Resurrection is the fact that makes Satan tremble. He would gladly blot out every witness that pointed the sinner to it. Infidels deny the Bible — worldings will not read it — but they cannot help reading the testimony of the Christian Sabbath. It is like an unbroken cord that leads un- erringly to the object to which it is attached. It proves the fact of the Resurrection. This in turn 294 SABBATH THEOLOGY proves the divinity of Christ. This in turn proves the authority of the Bible. It is the witness that will not down. If Adventists could destroy this witness would Satan mourn or would he rejoice? And in so far as they weaken its testimony, is Satan made sorry or glad? Infidels accept the historical personality of Jesus, but deny His Resurrection. Why! — Because it is the proof of His divinity. Said Voltaire, ^' There is no hope of destroying the Christian religion as long as the Christian Sabbath is acknowledged and kept by men as a sacred day.'' Why? Because it is the great inherent proof -bearing memorial witness to the Eesurrection of Jesus, The Christ. * ' The Jewish nation at the present time absolutely deny that Jesus arose after His death. They give no reason for this denial. The Jewish nation never denied the Historical Fact of Jesus of Nazareth. Especially during the last century we have heard some great expressions from well known and learned Jews concerning Jesus Christ. During the last few years we heard great Jewish teachers say that He was A Prophet. Most of the Reformed Jews admit that He was one of the greatest Teachers. That He was a great man is admitted by all Jews.^^ — Hugo Spitzer, Missionary in charge of Jewish Mission, Winnipeg, Canada. Why this positive denial of the Resurrection of Jesus? — Because it is the proof of His divinity. Bap- tism by immersion, as practiced by certain Christian churches, can practically have no appeal to the Jew as a witness to the Resurrection, because he seldom, if ever, comes in contact with it: but he is always face to face with the Christian Sabbath because of its constant clash with the Jewish Sabbath. EESURKECTION TESTIMONY 295 The Cliristian Sabbath is the one witness that never lets the Jew forget Jesus. So long as the Christian Sabbath stands as a witness to the Eesur- reetion of Jesus, by leading back in unbroken line to the event itself, the Jews can never entirely free their minds of the lurking subconscious thought, thaty perhaps, in spite of every denial to the con- trary, the Jesus ivhom they crucified did actually rise from the dead, and was therefore the Christ, — and what if Jesus were the Christ! Thus the Resurrection of Jesus is the very crux around which the great conflict rages : and the Chris- tian Sabbath is the great, unevadable, unanswerable and undownable witness to His Resurrection, and therefore to His divinity as the Christ. Can there then be any doubt that Satan would use every means in his power to destroy the Resurrection testimony of the Christian Sabbath? A memorial is the strongest of testimonies. A me- morial day is the strongest of memorials in the wide- ness of its reach. Therefore, the Christian Sabbath stands out pre-eminently before the world as the- great witness to the Resurrection by leading back in unbroken line to the very event itself. Does Satan recognize this fact! — He certainly does. He is con- centrating his forces against it. He cannot destroy the witness, but he is doing all in his power to weaken the force of its testimony, — by discrediting it, by de- stroying its sacredness, by abolishing it where pos- sible, by heaping dishonor upon it, by branding it is a relic of pagan sun-worship and as the **mark of the beast.'' Among the forces that he has arrayed against it are infidels, saloonkeepers, thugs, and Seventh-day Adventists. Does it indicate anything 296 SABBATH THEOLOGY to be working in a common cause with Christ's worst enemies? When Christ was on earth, Satan did all in his power to destroy Him, and finally succeeded in put- ting Him to death on the cross. On the seventh day of the week He lay in the tomb. This was the day of Satan's jubilee, and the day of greatest gloom to the disciples. What then is there in it for Christians to commemorate 1 But all this was reversed in the triumphant Resur- rection. Hence, the Resurrection is the evidence of Christ's victory, and of Satan's defeat; and the Christian Sabbath is the great witness constantly pointing to it. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to Satan's at- titude toward the Christian Sabbath, for its testi- mony is a powerful weapon against him. Hence, it was inevitable that Satan would institute an active campaign against it. He cannot destroy the fact of the Resurrection, nor the Christian Sabbath as the God appointed witness thereto. All he can do is to weaken the force of its testimony so far as possible. As an experienced strategist he naturally adapts his methods to the character of those to whom he ap- peals. Thus, to the worldly he endeavors to destroy its sacredness by making it a day of revelry, dissipa- tion, and pleasure seeking ; to the money worshipers, and the Christ haters, he endeavors to have it ig- nored. To the honest seekers after truth he endeav- ors to deflect its testimony by suggesting that it is a relic of pagan sun-worship, or a **mark of the beast." Evidently, if he can succeed in doing this, he has most efPectively accomplished his purpose; and he is far too able a strategist not to recognize and use so effective a means to secure his end. EESURRECTION TESTIMONY 297 1 He is far too able a strategist also, not to recog- nize the necessity of first deceiving and blinding his own prophets and teachers in order to most effec- tively deceive and blind others through them. Then, honestly posing as God^s special warning agents to warn the people of the great danger of being de- ceived by Satan, is only one of Satan's most effective blinds. Adventists constantly point others to Satan's six thousand years experience in deceiving, and yet im- agine themselves safe beyond his reach, while in re- ality their very imagined security makes them an easy mark. Moreover, Satan is shrewd enough to mix his own errors with sufficient truth to make them palatable. He transforms himself into an angel of light and transforms his ministers as ministers of righteous- ness (2 Cor. 11 : 14,15) that they may *^lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24 : 24 R. V.). Those who deliberately shut their eyes to facts, turn their backs to reason for the sake of theory, and open their ears to flattering delusions, thereby make them- selves vulnerable to Satan's deceptions, and are eas- ily led to believe that they are the special recipients of God's whole truth, and God's specially appointed interpreters of His inspired word. Adventists deliberately shut their eyes to the plain fact, that the Sunday Sabbath is a witness to the Resurrection, and refuse to see anything in it but a relic of sun-worship and a '^mark of the beast," yet knowing, as they must, that Christians keep it solely as a memorial of the Resurrection, and that God who reads the heart cannot fail to recognize the motive. Adventists thus ignore reason, and deny the justice of God. It is such that Satan most easily blinds. CHAPTER XVI. THE SEAL OF GOD. Adventists teach that the Sabbath is the seal of God referred to in Revelation 7. Even if this were true, would the seal of God be the Saturday Sabbath commemorating the Creation and Exodus or the Sunday Sabbath commemorating the two all-import- ant events in the world's history — the Creation and the Resurrection? The former as a memorial of Creation would only be a seal, or assurance, of God's power as Creator : the latter would be a seal, or as- surance, of both His power and love as Creator and Saviour. The Resurrection of Christ is, in a sense, the only seal or assurance of salvation; for, ^^If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins'* (1 Cor. 15 : 17). Therefore the Sabbath as a seal would be very incomplete without its Resurrection assurance. But Adventists here, as at every step of their argument, assume that the Sabbath commandment recognizes no Sabbath but the seventh day of the week. The Sabbath is nowhere in the Bible called a THE SEAL OF GOD 299 ''seaP': but in Ex. 31 : 17 and Ex. 20 : 12,20, it is called a *^sign." Adventists argue that ^'sign'^ and '^seaP' are used in the Bible as synonymous terms because Rom. 4 : 11 says that the sign of circum- cision was given to Abraham as a seal (or token of the covenant — Gen. 17 : 11). A staff may be used as a pointer, and a pointer may be used as a staff, but it does not follow that staff and pointer are necessarily synonymous terms ; so a sign may be used as a seal, and a seal may be used as a sign, but it does not follow that sign and seal are necessarily synonymous terms. The origi- nal word for ^^sign" is never rendered ^^seal,'^ and the original word for **seal" is never rendered ' ^ sign. ' ^ The word ^ ^ seal ' ' is used sixty-five times in the Bible, but never is it said to be the Sabbath. Adventists admit that the word ^'seaP' is used in the Bible in various senses. — See The Great Contro- versy, p. 690. Sign is also used in the Bible where it cannot mean seal. — See Matt. 12 : 38,39; 16 : 4 24 : 3; Mark 8 : 11,12; Luke 11 : 29,30; John 2 : 18 6 : 30 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 22 ; Ezek. 24 : 24 ; Isa. 7 : 11,14 Ex. 4 : 8, etc. Therefore, the mere fact that the Sab- bath is called a ^'sign'' is far from conclusive proof that the Sabbath is the ''seal of God" referred to in Revelation 7. As a sign or mark, the Christian Sabbath distin- guishes Christian nations from others just as the Jewish Sabbath distinguished the Jewish nation from others. A man may keep the Sabbath ever so strictly and yet not be a Christian; hence the Sabbath cannot seal a man's salvation. Keeping the Sabbath is 300 SABBATH THEOLOGY man's act; but man cannot seal liis salvation by any outward act of Ms own. We are saved by grace, through faith, not by w^orks (Eph. 2 : 8,9). Keeping the Sabbath is not a sure test of character or of fit- ness for heaven. But God's seal must be a sure mark of the fitness of the one sealed. Hence the Sabbath cannot be God's seal. *^Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" (2 Cor. 1 : 22). *^In v/hom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1 : 13). ^*And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4 : 30). These passages point to the Holy Spirit as the seal witli which God seals the redeemed. In one sense the Holy Spirit is here represented as the seal, the pres- ence of which gives assurance of eternal life. In an- other sense the sealing is the act of the Holy Spirit. But keeping the Sabbath is an act of man, not of the Holy Spirit. Even though the act may be prompted by the Holy Spirit, yet the act itself is man's act. *^And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him" (Matt. 3 : 16). ^^And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- scending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizetli with the Holy Ghost. And I saw. THE SEAL OP GOD 301 and bare record that this is the Son of God" (John 1 : 32-34). ''For him hath God the Father sealed'' (John 6 : 27). If the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the act of sealing, then the Holy Spirit with which we are baptized must be the seal with which we are sealed. ''Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his'' (Rom. 8:9). Then the Spirit of Christ is the seal, or assurance, that we belong to Christ. "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor. 15 : 17). Then the resurrection of Christ is, in a sense, the seal, or as- surance, of Eedemption. Whatever confirms, rati- fies, or makes sure, carries the sense of a seal. In Eevelation 7, the 144,000 represents the serv- ants of God (verse 3) ; but all true Christians are servants of God. — Then all true Christians are in- cluded in the 144,000. Again we are told, in Rev. 14 : 3, that only the 144,000 can learn the song of the redeemed ; but we know .that all the redeemed will be able to sing that song. — Then all the redeemed are in- cluded in the 144,000. Hence, we must conclude that the 144,000 represents the whole church of God, and, therefore, is to be interpreted, not literally, but sym- bolically, — which also harmonizes with the symboli- cal setting in which it is placed. 12 X 12 X 1000=144,000. 12 x 12 may symbolize the twelve patriarchs as representing the Old Tes- tament dispensation, and the twelve apostles as rep- resenting the New Testament dispensation; thus rep- resenting the twelve tribes of Isreal both in the let- ter and in the spirit. In the letter Israel represents 302 SABBATH THEOLOGY only the Jews ; but in the spirit it represents the uni- versal church. — See Eom. 9:6; Gal. 3 : 28,29 and 6 : 16, also Eomans, 11th chap. One thousand is the symbol of contrast between God's reckoning and man's reckoning; thus, ^^One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thou- sand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). One thousand then expresses the indefinite character of God's reck- oning as viewed from man's standpoint. It would thus lend the same indefinite character to the 144,000, which would, therefore, represent an innumerable multitude from man's view, and, at the same time, a very definite number from God's view (Matt. 10 : 30). It is definite in that no true servant of God will be left out. After John ^^ heard'' the symbolical number of the sealed, he ^^ beheld'' them as ^^a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kin- dreds, and people, and tongues." If the preceding inferences are correct, we have here but the spirit- ual, world-wide interpretation of the Jewish symbol in the 144,000 of all the tribes of Israel. There is nothing to imply that John saw the sealed as a sepa- rate multitude : he only ^^ heard" the number of them, but all he ^^ beheld" was the innumerable multitude. Adventists teach that the 144,000 are the exact number of Christians that will be on the earth at Christ's second coming, and that the innumerable multitude are all the Christian dead. They accept the symbolical interpretation of the twelve tribes of Israel as representing the universal church. Then they have no reason for rejecting the symbolical in- terpretation of the 144,000 in the same connection. THE SEAL OF GOD 303 The innumerable multitude are designated as ** These are they which came out of great tribula- tion" (verse 14), but if they are all the Christian dead, it would not be true, in an average sense, that they passed through greater tribulation than the 144,000. They are also designated as they which *'have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb''; and this applies no less truly to the 144,000. Moreover, all the blessings and rewards in the vision are assigned to the innum- erable multitude and none to the 144,000, unless botli are the same. The 144,000 are designated, in Eevelation 14, as the ** redeemed from the earth" (verse 3), again, as *Hhe redeemed from among men" (verse 4). This applies no less truly to the innumerable multitude. These considerations, together with those given at the beginning argue the identity of the 144,000 with the innumerable multitude. The 144,000 are the ^^firstfruits" (Eev. 14 : 4) ; then there must be an afterfruits. Paul said, *^The dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thess. 4 : 16). Then the 144,000 cannot be the firstf ruits with regard to the Christian dead, nor the afterfruits ; hence they must include all the Christian dead. When we consider the heathen who have died with- out ever hearing of Christ, and hence without any chance of either accepting or rejecting Him; and that **God is just" ; it is at least not unreasonable to think that from among these may be the afterfruits. They could scarcely be designated as ^Hhe servants of God'' (applied to the 144,000), nor as ^^they which 304 SABBATH THEOLOGY came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb'' (applied to the innumerable multitude) ; and hence can not in any sense be included in the first- fruits, and so are without any provision, so far as re- vealed in the Bible; but as they ^'are a law unto themselves'' (Rom. 2 : 14), the inference at least is, that God will deal with them on a basis not revealed in the Bible, because not necessary for man to know ; which, however, must involve personal acceptance of Christ, as the basis of salvation for there is salva- tion in no other (Acts 4 : 12), and every man is a free moral agent, which fact involves personal de- cision. This acceptance must necessarily be after this life, since they had no knowledge of Christ in this life. Thus they would be the fruits of a sepa- rate and after dispensation. This involves no second chance doctrine, but only the giving of a first chance to those who have never had any chance at all. The how, when, and where involved belong to the unrevealed counsel of God's infinite wisdom. The 144,000 were sealed in their foreheads (Rev. 7:3). We next see them, in Chapter 14, with the Father's name written in their foreheads. Also, in Chapter 22 : 4, we read, ' ' His name shall be in their foreheads." It is apparent then that the *^ Father's name," not the Sabbath, is the seal with which they were sealed. Adventists say that the forehead is here used as a figure to denote the intellect, or mind. (See The Great Controversy, p. 691.) Then from this view, THE SEAL OF GOD 305 sealing tlie Father's name in tlieir forelieads would denote the imparting to those who are thus sealed the definite knowledge that God is their Father and they are His children. But every fanatic thinks he has this definite knowl- edge (and the more fanatical, the more certain he is), and, therefore, that he belongs to the sealed, and hence his doctrine must be true, and all who do not agree with him must be excluded. This only shows that the proof of the sealing is in the fact and not in the thinking. We do not believe that the forehead here neces- sarily denotes the intellect, or mind, or at least we believe that it has an additional significance. A seal in the forehead would be most noticeable to others and least noticeable to one's self. The seal is where God sees it and others see it, but where the sealed one himself cannot see it. Thus the mark in the fore- head, denotes the testimony of the life, which, like a mark in the forehead, cannot be hid, but is *^ known and read of all men. ' ' The Father's name necessarily represents the Father's character. Jesus said, ^'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14 : 9). Jesus per- fectly revealed the character of the Father in his own character and life, and just as the character and life of Christians conform to the character and life of Jesus, do men see in their lives the character of the Father. Hence, those who are sealed in their foreheads with the ^* Father's name" are those whose lives reveal the character of the Father. The more perfect the Christian character, the clearer is the seal ; but the seal, however dim, seals the one bearing it as belonging to the number sealed. 306 SABBATH THEOLOGY The most perfect Christian character is not found in those who are most self-satisfied, and most confi- dent of having the seal, but in those who are most conscious of their own unworthiness, and most reli- ant on the all-sufficient merit of Christ as their Sav- iour, and most Christlike in their unselfishness and self-forgetfulness and in their consecration to the service of others and to the cause of Christ. ''Moses wist not that his face shone'' (Ex.34 :29). When Isaiah got a vision of the holiness of the Lord he said, ''Woe is me" (Isa. 6:5). Daniel, "a man greatly beloved" of God, included himself with his people and said, "We have sinned" (Dan. 9 : 5). God called Job "a perfect and upright man" (Job. 1:8), but Job said, "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42 : 6). "It is written, be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1 : 16). Then holiness is in the being, and not in the claiming ; and the being is always coupled with a sense of humility and un- worthiness, as in the cases of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and Job. "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal. The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 2 : 19). Then, whom the Lord knoweth as His are securely sealed as His in that knowledge. Hence the literal sense of the sealing is in God's knowledge of the sealing, not in any visible mark in the foreheads of those sealed, nor in any self -consciousness of the fact in the minds of those sealed. Those who in any degree expect to merit the seal by keeping the Sabbath, or by any other act of their own, to that extent fail to put their full reliance in THE SEAL OF GOD 307 tlie all-sufficient merit of Christ's sacrifice, and will therefore, to that extent, most surely fail. This is the inevitable tendency of the Sabbath seal doctrine ; for if the Sabbath is the seal, then receiv- ing the seal must depend wholly on keeping the Sab- bath. If the sealing depends partly on anything else besides keeping the Sabbath, then keeping the Sab- bath is not, in itself, the definite seal. But if keep- ing the Sabbath is the definite seal, then persons wholly unworthy would, by keeping the Sabbath, receive the seal. We can be sure that the sealing will depend wholly on merit, and not on any outward act. The Sabbath seal doctrine is based on the fact that the Creation reason appended to the Sabbath com- mandment contains the three elements of a seal (see page 173) ; and Adventists assume, therefore, that this fact makes the Sabbath the seal of God. We ad- mit that the Creation is truly a seal of God's power and rightful authority, but the Sabbath is merely a memorial pointing to the Creation. Now we may draw a pointer pointing to the seal on a legal docu- ment. Is the pointer the seal? Can the pointer be the same as the thing pointed to? Is it possible, in any conceivable sense, for the pointer to be the seal or the equivalent of the seal! Neither is it any more possible for the Sabbath, which only points to the Creation, to be the seal, or its equivalent, involved in the Creation. According to Adventists themselves, the three ele- ments of a seal are contained only in the words, ^^For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth": 1. Authority (God), 2. Character of authority (Crea- tor), 3. Territory (Universe). 308 SABBATH THEOLOGY Then the seventh day on which God rested is no part of the seal. Now the six working days stand in the same relation to the Sabbath as the six Creation days to God 's rest. Hence the six working days, and not the Sabbath, would, in the copy sense, represent the Creation seal. The record of Creation placed in the Decalogue, as a seal or assurance of God^s rightful authority, gives validity, not only to the fourth commandment, but to the entire Decalogue as the commandments of the one only living and true God. Its attachment to the fourth commandment is fully accounted for in the model relation involved. CHAPTER XVII. THE MARK OF THE BEAST. If the Saturday Sabbath is not the seal of God, then the Sunday Sabbath is not the ^^mark of the beast ; ' ' for the latter assumption is based wholly on the former assumption, on the ground that one is the parallel of the other. But what then is the *^mark of the beast"! Just as the ^^ Father's name" is the seal of God, so, in a parallel sense, the name of the beast would be the *^mark of the beast." And this is confirmed in so many words, — *Hhe mark of his name" (Rev. 14 : 11) ; *Hhe mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" (Rev. 13 : 17) ; ^^and his num- ber is six hundred threescore and six" (verse 18). Many names have been proposed answering to this number, but we will here only notice the one held by Adventists. The beast has upon his seven heads **the name of blasphemy" (Rev. 13 : 1). One of the titles assumed by the pope is vicarius Filii Dei — ^meaning *^A sub- stitute for the Son of God. " If we add the numerical o 10 SABBATH THEOLOGY values of the letters of this title, according to the Roman notation the sum will be 666; thus (omitting the letters not belonging to the Roman no- tation), V+1+C+l+U+I+L +I+I+D +1 = 5+1 +100+1+5 +1+50+1 +1+500+1 = 666, U is given the same value as V, as these letters were originally only different forms of the same letter, — we still call double V (W) double U. This title, therefore, answers to the number of the beast (verse 18). It also answers to the purpose of Satan, for his constant aim is to overthrow the au- thority of Christ and substitute his own by whatever agency he may, and the title is thus a jfitting '^rnark of the beast" whose power is received from the dra- gon, or Satan (verse 4). !, Adventists say that this title identifies the Papacy as the beast, but immediately ignore the plain state- ments above cited, — that the name, or the number of the name of the beast, as representing that name, is the ^^mark of the beast, '^ — another example of how the^^ ^'just let the Bible interpret itself.'* We will here quote from an Adventist pamphlet entitled. The Seal of God and the Marh of the Beast, page 20, ^^ Having found that the Papacy is the beast, we can easily find out what the ^mark of the beast' is, for it is a rival of God's seal — the Sab- bath." We see that their whole Sunday ^'mark of the beast" argument is based solely on the assumption that the seal of God is the Saturday Sabbath. Then if the Saturday Sabbath is not the seal of God, the Sunday Sabbath is not the *'mark of the beast." Again, notice (verse 17) that only those who have THE MARK OF THE BEAST 311 the ^^mark of the beast'' are allowed to buy or sell, and this restriction is evidently not limited to any one day of the week. Then does the Sunday Sab- bath, in its one day of the week restriction (which is no more than the Sabbath law itself requires, and which operates alike on those who do and those who do not receive it), answer to the ^'mark of the beast"?" If not then it cannot be the ^'mark of the beast." Bishop Newton, as quoted by Dr. Clark in his comments on Hev. 13 : 17, says (referring to the Eoman Catholic Church), "If any dissent from the stated and authorized forms, they are condemned and excommunicated as heretics ; and in consequence of that, they are no longer suffered to buy or sell. . . . So Eoger Haveden relates of William the Conqueror, that he was so dutiful to the pope that he would not permit any one in his power to buy or sell anything whom he found to be disobedient to the apostolic sea. So the canon of the council of Lateran, under Pope Alexander III, made against the Wal- denses and Albigenses, enjoins, upon pain of anath- ema, that no man presume to entertain or cherish them in his house or land, or exercise traffic with them. The synod of Tours in France, under the same pope, orders, under like intermination, that no man should presume to receive or assist them, no, not so much as to hold any communication with them in selling or buying." This answers to the condition which the prophecy predicts, and a condition too that is again possible if the Catholic Church had full control. But was it the rejecting of the Sunday Sabbath, 312 SABBATH THEOLOGY or Vv^as it the rejecting of tlie ritual arxd authority of the Catholic Church, by which heretics were judged 1 This will determine the mark by which the privilege of buying or selling was granted or with- held. And what was once the ^^mark of the beast" will remain the **mark of the beast"; for the pro- phecy gives no intimation that the mark was changed. *^The mark, or name of the beast, or number of his name," represents the authority of the beast, just as the ^^ Father ^s name" represents the authority of God, and on the forehead or right hand, represents a recognition of that authority. The Sunday ^^mark of the beast" delusion is, un- doubtedly, the most effective device used by Advent- ists, as it appeals strongly to the superstitious ele- ment in man. When we remember Satan's six thousand years experience, we can put no de\"ice beyond his ingen- uity, and we can be sure that the more etfective the device, the more certain he is to make use of it. If he can get people to believe that the Sunday Sabbath was established by his own authority, then he has completely destroyed its Resurrection testimony, which is the very thing that he would most assuredly try to do. 1. There can be no doubt that Satan would, if pos- sible, destroy every witness that points to the Eesur- rection. 2. That the Sunday Sabbath is the great standing witness continually pointing to the Resur- rection, is a fact too plain to be denied. 3. Therefore, Satan would, if possible, destroy the testimony of the Sunday Sabbath. THE MARK OF THE BEAST 313 These three propositions, which are too self-evi- dent to be disputed, clearly point to Satan as the true source of all such plots to abolish or discredit the Christian Sabbath. Satan's ^^ Sunday mark of the beast" campaign involves the co-operation of the Roman Catholic Church as the beast claiming the Sunday Sabbath as a mark of its authority, and the Adventists pointing to said claim of the beast. Both are, therefore, allies in the same cause: their avowed antagonism being only an essential part of Satan's strategem. We neither affirm nor deny the Adventist doctrine regarding the Roman Catholic Church as the *^ beast." We only assume their position here in order to meet them on their own ground. When we consider the extravagant and unwar- ranted claims that have been made by the Roman Catholic Church, it is not surprising that it claims to have changed the day of the Sabbath or anything else that involves claim to authority. Adventists think that the doctrine that the Sunday Sabbath is the '^mark of the beast" is confirmed be- cause the Roman Catholic Church, which they regard as the beast referred to in Daniel and Revelation, claims it as a mark of her authority. No one will attempt to dispute the two following propositions. 1. Nothing can be regarded as a *'mark of the beast" unless it is in some way a recognition of the authority of *Hhe beast." 2. What totally ignores the authority of ''the beast" cannot be a ''mark of the beast." Recognition of a claim is recognition of the au- Q 14 SABBATH : THEOLOGY thority making the claim. Then to give up the Sun- day Sabbath in recognition of the Catholic claim to it, would be a recognition of the right of the Catholic Church to make the claim, and to that extent a recog- nition of the authority of the Catholic Church. Who then most recognize the authority of the Catholic Church: Sunday keeping Protestants who totally ignore the Catholic claim, or Adventists who recog- nize the Catholic claim, in recognizing Sunday as a mark of Catholic authority? If the Eoman Catholic Church were to claim the sole authority to give permission to breathe the at- mosphere, would we be recognizing the authority of the Eoman Catholic Church if we continued to breathe the atmosphere? If the Eoman Catholic Church makes a claim that it has no right to make, we are under no moral obli- gation to recognize that claim. Eoman Catholics themselves, as well as Advent- ists, try hard to make it appear that Protestants who keep the Sunday Sabbath thereby recognize the au- thority of the Eoman Catholic Church; but nothing can be farther from the truth. Does the Just Judge, judge Protestants guilty of a thing that they are not guilty of? Does God base His judgment on facts or on the dictum of Adventist and Catholic Exposi- tors? If Protestants recognized that there was no au- thority for the Sunday Sabbath but the authority of the Eoman Catholic Church, they would undoubtedly cease to observe it ; for it is a well known fact that Protestants do not recognize the authority of the Eoman Catholic Church. THE MAEK OF THE BEAST 315 When Adventists assert that Protestants keep the Sunday Sabbath in recognition of the authority of the Eoman Catholic Church, they assert what they cannot help but know is false. They have a great deal to say about the ^^ lying spirit/' but such asser- tions, that they cannot help but know are false, and made only to sustain their theory, can only be due to the * * lying spirit, ' ' and are a sure mark of the nature of the theory they are meant to sustain. The Eesurrection was the climax of God's great plan of Redemption. It was, therefore, the most definite point in God's mind before the foundation of the world. It was the great determining crisis in human destiny. It was the greatest memorial event in all time. No event in God's dealings with man can rank with it as a God appointed day-fixing event for fixing the day of the Sabbath. It occurred at the ex- ' act point where the Exodus reason, which fixed the day of the Jewish Sabbath, ended, and is, therefore, the only event that can possibly be looked to to fix the day of the Sabbath from that point onward. God through the Resurrection definitely chose and honored the first day of the week above every other day of the week. This can only mean that He pur- posed it to be the day of the Christian Sabbath. He again honored it above every other day of the week in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which may be regarded as the formal ap- pointment of the first day of the week as the Chris- tian Sabbath. God has never otherwise fixed the day of the Sab- bath than by some act or acts of His providence,. 316 SABBATH THEOLOGY God's providence in all this cliain of facts is too plain to be misunderstood by any one not theory blinded. Therefore, God, not the Roman Catholic Church, changed the day of the Sabbath. If God appointed and sanctified through His providence the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, then Adventists are certainly guilty of blas- phemy in stigmatizing it as the ' ^ mark of the beast. ' ' The Resurrection was beyond question the great- est memorial event of all time. It occurred on Sun- day, and hence Sunday is the only suitable day on which to commemorate it. God, not man, selected Sunday for the Resurrection. He put the seal or mark of highest honor upon it in thus honoring it above every other day of the week. Who then dare call it the ^'mark of the beast?" Adventists say, that Protestants adopted Sunday keeping from the Catholics and the Catholics adopted it from the pagan Romans, who kept it in worship of the sun. It would be just as correct to say that Adventists adopted Saturday keeping direct from the pagan Romans who kept it in worship of Saturn ; for Saturday was dedicated to Saturn just as Sunday was dedicated to the Sun. The mere fact that Saturday was dedicated to Saturn does not prevent Adventists or others from keeping that day in commemoration of the Creation,, if they choose to do so, then why should the fact that Sunday was dedicated to the Sun prevent Protes- tants or others from keeping that day in commemo- ration of the Resurrection. THE MARK OF THE BEAST 317 No doubt if the Resurrection had been on Satur- day, Adventists would gladly recognize the added luster. Do they deny that God controls events, and that He had a definite purpose in the timing of the Resurrection? Do they think to criticise God and in- form Him that He made a great mistake in making Sunday the day of the Resurrection, because it was the day of sun-worship and, therefore, it would be impossible to keep it in commemoration of the Resur- rection, for Satan has the prior right to it, and hence it would be recognizing Satan's authority? This is practically what Adventists say when they assert, as they do, that Sunday cannot commemorate the Resurrection, but only the origin of its name in sun-worship. If this were true, then Saturday can only commemorate the origin of its name in the wor- ship of Saturn. The names of the days of the week answer as well as any others as means of reference, and beyond that fact they have nothing to do with determining the day of the Sabbath; for God is not the childish quibbler over the origin of words that Adventists assume Him to be. If the Resurrection in itself was a sufficient me- morial reason (and no greater can be found) for keeping Sunday, then no authority of State, Pope, or Church is needed to justify it ; and, therefore, Pro- testants can keep it in commemoration of the Resur- rection without recognizing any other authority ; and only when thus kept is it an expression of gratitude and a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God. Adventists claim that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Roman Catholic 318 SABBATH THEOLOGY power at the Council of Laoclicea, A. D. 364. At the same time they claim that the Sunday Sabbath origi- nated in the Church at Rome. These two claims contradict each other. For Lao- dicea was in iVsia Minor, one thousand miles east of Bome. It was a Greek, not a Roman city. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The council consisted of thirty-two bishops from the dif- ferent provinces in Asia, who did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having any authority over them; for it was nearly two hundred years before the Bishop of Rome became the recognized head, or pope, over all the churches. Neither the Bishop nor the church of Rome had anything whatever to do with this council. The council represented, among others, the early churches which Paul himself founded in Asia. The 29th canon of this council reads thus, ^ ' Chris- tians ought not to Judaize and to rest in the Sab- bath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's day, should rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ. ' ' This is the act by which Adventists say that the Church of Rome (which was not even represented, and had nothing to do with it) changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. But this unanimous action of the council only shows that the sentiment was over- whelmingly in favor of Sunday throughout the churches of Asia that were represented at the coun- cil. The purpose of the council was to rid the Church of a small Judaizing element that still ha- rassed the Church as in PauPs time. Paul himself THE MARK OF THE BEAST 319 said, '*I would that they were even cut off which trouble you" (Gal. 5 : 12) ; and it was the Judaizing element that he warned against when he said, ^'Be- ware of the concision" (Phil. 3:2). Again, Adventists claim that the Papacy (which they say is the beast of Revelation 13) was estab- lished in A. D. 538, when the Bishop of Rome became the head, or pope, of all the churches by the decree of the Roman emperor. But this was nearly two hundred years after the time (364) when they say the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath. Then the * ^ beast ' ' did not change it. How then is Sunday the mark of the authority of the beast, if it was not es- tablished by its authority? Adventists explain this by saying that Sunday, as the day of sun-worship, was the mark of the dragon (pagan Rome), and when he gave his power to the ^' beast" (Rev. 13 : 2) he also gave the mark of his authority to the ^' beast." This is based on the as- sumption that Sunday was from the beginning the mark of Satan's authority. But as we have already shown by the clearest Bible proofs, that the Creation days were indefinite periods, and, therefore, that God rested on the first day of the first week of time, then the first day of the week, as the day of worship appointed by God, was a mark or sign of God's authority. It was inevitably certain, that Satan, as God's an- tagonist, would attempt to pervert the use of the day; and he could have used no more natural and effective means than to gradually materialize the worship of God into the worship of the sun. When God restored the day of the original Sabbath, in the 320 SABBATH THEOLOGY Eesurrection, it was inevitably certain that Satan would again attempt to pervert its use. Besides, if there is any one thing of which we may be certain it is that Satan would do all in his power to blot out the testimony of the Eesurrection. And since the Resurrection Sabbath leads back in un- broken line to the event itself, and is, therefore, the great standing witness to the Resurrection, nothing could be more certain than that Satan would use every means possible to pervert its testimony. 1. If he can make any believe that the Sunday Sabbath is contrary to the law, by misinterpreting the Sabbath law to mean only the seventh day of the week, he would certainly do it. 2. If by thus misinterpreting the Sabbath law he can make Catholics believe that the Sunday Sabbath was established by the Catholic Church, and hence a proof of her divine authority — thus turning its tes- timony away from the Resurrection — he would cer- tainly do it. 3. If he can, through Adventists, make any believe that the Sunday Sabbath is contrary to the Sabbath law, and only a ^^mark of the beast'' — thus most ef- fectively destroying its Resurrection testimony — he would certainly do it. ' If these devices serve Satan's purpose, we can be sure that he would not fail to use them, and that wo can make no mistake in attributing their origin to him ; for the more effective the device, the more cer- tain he would be to use it. We read in Rev. 13 : 16.17, '*And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, THE MAKK OF THE BEAST 321 I } to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their fore- heads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name/* The lamblike beast, which caused this marking, Adventists say is the United States, and that this prophecy will be fulfilled by the United States pass- ing a compulsory Sunday law. Hence, it is still future, and if still future, no one has yet received the ^^mark of the beast,'* nor will, until this pro- phecy is fulfilled. But if the Sunday Sabbath is the *^mark of the beast,** and if keeping it is receiving the *^mark of the beast,** then all that have kept it have received the **mark of the beast.** This is the only logical conclusion, and shows the absurdity of the assumption that the Sunday Sabbath is the **mark of the beast*' referred to in the passage before us. Again Adventists say, that the beast (or littJe horn of Daniel 7) ^^ shall think to change the times and the law** (Dan. 7 : 25, R. V.), and since the fourth commandment is the only one that refers to time, therefore, the word ** times** identifies the fourth commandment, or Sabbath law, as the one specially referred to, and the plural form (times), implies more than one change, and therefore refers first, to the change of the beginning of the day from sunset to midnight, and second, to the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. But he *^ shall think to change the times and the law;** therefore he shall not actually change them, but only ^^ think to change them.** Now, if God, who is the God of nature, made the day to begin (as 322 S.UBBATH THEOLOGY nature begins it) at midnight, but the Catbolic Church (or beast) thinks by a misinterpretation of Scripture, to have changed it herself from sunset to midnight; and if God himself changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but the Catholic Church thinks to have changed it herself, contrary to the Sabbath law, — then the Catholic Church truly '^thinks to change the times and the law/' But if these changes, which are now practically actual facts, were really made by the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church not only * thought'' but did change the ^^ times and the law." Dan. 7 : 25 thus proves more than Adventists in- tend; for it proves that the Catholic Church only * thinks" to have changed the Sabbath from Satur- day to Sunday, and therefore, that God himself actually made the change. Otherwise, the Catholic Church not only thought but actually did make the change; for the change is an actual historical fact whoever made it. Prophecy must be fulfilled in an actual historical sense if it has any value as proph- ecy. Catholics claim, as Adventists well know, that the Sunday Sabbath was established by the apostles themselves, by the authority which Christ himself gave to His Church on earth, which they claim is the Catholic Church; and in this sense only do they claim that the Sunday Sabbath was established by the authority of the Catholic Church, and only thus that it is a mark of her authority. A claim can only be fairly taken in the sense in which it is meant. Hence, to acknowledge the claim, as Adventists do, that the Sunday Sabbath was es- THE MARK OF THE BEAST 323 f tablished by the authority of the Catholic Church, is practically to acknowledge the claim "back of it, without which it is void, namely, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of Christ on earth. Are Adventists ready to acknowledge this last claim? If not, they can establish no argument out of the first claim, which is absolutely void when separated from the claim on which it is based. THE $1,000 EEWAED. << I hereby offer Dr. Duval one thousand dollars if Tie will show me one passage either in the Protes- tant or Catholic Bible, in the Old or New Testament, where it tells us to observe the Sunday.'' — Father Gerritsma, in the Winnipeg (Manitoba) Free Press of April 21, 1910. Father Gerritsma further says in answer to a question asked by E. E. Wheeler, Brownlee, Idaho: *^Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 8th inst., I beg to say that I did make the offer of $1,000 to Rev. Dr. Duval. In my discussion with him I claimed that there were 600 passages in the Bible enjoining the observance of the Sabbath (or Saturday), and that not one passage could be found enjoining the observance of Sunday or the first day of the week ; that the change of the observance of the Lord's Day from Saturday to Sunday had been made by the church in apostolic time. I **This offer was first made in St. Louis, Mo., some forty years ago, by a Jesuit Father; since then hundreds of people, ministers and laymen, have tried to fulfil the condition of the offer, but have 324 SABBATH THEOLOGY failed, because there is no such passage in the Bible. ' * Yours truly, A. Gerritsma. Winnipeg, Feb. 28, 1911. The above is copied from an Adventist leaflet en- titled "Sunday a Catholic Holy Day.'' But notice that the claim of Father Gerritsma is, that the change from Saturday to Sunday was made by the (Catholic) church in apostolic time, not by a pope several hundred years later, but by the apostles themselves. Will Adventists admit that the Sab- bath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the apostles themselves? Yet this is all that can be made out of the claim. The claim is rendered void if we ignore the claim back of it : that the apostolic and the Catholic Church are the same. How much support then does it give to their Sunday mark of the beast doctrine? Father Gerritsma claims that there are 600 pas- sages in the Bible enjoining the observance of the Sabbath; but aside from the withholding of the manna (on Saturday), not one of these passages designates the day of the Sabbath, and hence, in themselves, all are just as applicable to Sunday as to Saturday. They refer simply to the institution of the Sabbath, not to the day of the Sabbath. The only question to decide is : Are we under the manna- Exodus appointment or the Pentecost-Resurrection appointment, as to the day of the Sabbath? Adventists have printed and circulated, in sup- port of ^their Sunday mark of the beast doctrine, 100,000;000 copies (by their own count) of a similar THE MARK OF THE BEAST 325 $1,000 offer made by Father Enright of Kansas City, Mo. The $1,000 offer (in the form in which it is invari- ably worded) can be made just as safely on one side of the question as on the other, for there is no pas- sage in the Bible that in itself determines the day of the Sabbath. Literally, any day after six is the seventh. The day of the Sabbath is not a question of a defi- nite command (since there is no definite command fixing the day), but was determined at the begin- ning of each dispensation by the memorable event which, in itself, was the starting point of the dispen- sation, and by which the corresponding day of the week became the most fitting memorial day, and therefore the most fitting day for praise and wor- ship in that dispensation; while the Creation me- morial, belonging to each dispensation, still re- mained in the rest after six days of labor. CHAPTER XVIII. ANSWER TO EOMe's CHALLENGE Rome's Challenge is the title of a pamphlet con- sisting of four articles written, in 1893, by the editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, U. S. A., the official organ of the Eoman Catholic Church in the United States. These articles, under the above title, were pub- lished by the Seventh-day Adventists. They were afterwards published in pamphlet form by the Catholic Mirror. We will here quote from an edi- torial in the Catholic Mirror of Dec. 23, 1893. ^ ^ The avidity with which these editorials have been sought, and the appearance of a reprint of them by the International Religious Liberty Association (Adventist), published in Chicago, entitled ^'Rome's Challenge; Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday T', together with the continuous demand, have prompted the Mirror to give permanent form to them and thus comply with the demand. *^The pages of this brochure unfold to the reader one of the most glaringly conceivable contradictions existing between the practice and theory of the Pro- ANSWER TO EOME^S CHALLENGE 327 testant world, and unsusceptible of any rational solution ; the theory claiming the Bible alone as the teacher, which unequivocally and most positively commands Saturday to be kept ^holy,' whilst their practice proves that they utterly ignore the unequiv- ocal requirements of their teacher, the Bible, and occupying Catholic ground for three centuries and a half, by the abandonment of their theory, they stand before the world to-day the representatives of a sys- tem, the most indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal that can be imagined. ^^ We feel that we cannot interest our readers more than to produce the ^Apendix' which the Interna- tional Eeligious Association, an ultra Protesant or- ganization, has added to the reprint of our articles. The perusal of the Apendix will confirm the fact that our argument is unanswerable, and that the only resource left the Protestants is either to retire from Catholic territory where they have been squat- ting for three centuries and a half, and acceptin^^ their own teacher, the Bible, in good faith, as so clearly suggested by the writer of the * Apendix,' commence forthwith to keep the Saturday — the day enjoined by the Bible from Genesis to Revelation; or, abandoning the Bible as their sole teacher, cease to be squatters, and a living contradiction of their own principles, and taking out letters of adoption as citizens of the kingdom of Christ on earth — his Church — be no longer victims of self-delusion and necessary self-contradiction. **The arguments contained in this pamphlet are firmly grounded on the word of God, and having been closely studied with the Bible in h^nd, leave no 328 SABBATH THEOLOGY escape for tlie conscientious Protestant except aban- donment of Sunday worship and the return to Sat- urday, as commanded by their teacher, the Bible, or, unwilling to abandon the tradition of the Catholic Church, which enjoins the keeping of Sunday, and which they have accepted in direct opposition to their teacher, the Bible, consistently accept her in all her teachings. Keason and common sense de- mand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping of Sunday. Compromise is impossible. ' ' To the above we will add some further boastings of the Catholic Church : *'The Bible says, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' The Catholic Church says, *No! By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.* And, lo, the entire civilized world bows down in rev- erent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church!'' — Father Enright, C. S. S. R. of Redemp- torist College, Kansas City, Mo., in American Senti- nel, June 1, 1893.. *' Sunday as a day of the week set apart for the obligatory public worship of almighty God * * * is purely a creation of the Catholic Church." — Am. Cath. Quar. Review, Jan., 1883. * ' The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay in spite of themselves to the authority of the (Catholic) Church.'' — Plain Talk for Protestants, page 213. ''The Catholic Church changed the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week because the ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 329 most memorable of Christ's works was accomplished on Sunday. They (Protestants) cannot prove their point from Scripture, therefore, if sincere, they must acknowledge that they draw their observance of Sunday from tradition, and are, therefore, weekly contradicting themselves.' ' — Cardinal Gibbons, in a letter to E. E. Frank, dated Oct. 3, 1889. All of the above quotations are taken from Adven- tist literature. In flaunting these Catholic asser- tions to prove their ^'Mark of the Beast" doctrine, Adventists would do well to bear in mind the claim that lies back of them ; viz., that the Catholic Church and the Apostolic Church are one and the same; and, therefore, to recognize one claim is to recog- nize the other. But, blind to their own folly, note how Adventists vie with Catholics, as allies to the same end, both striving to make the Sunday Sabbath the mark of Roman Catholic authority; and in so far as they succeed, its Resurrection testimony is lost sight of. Can anything be in more perfect harmony with Satan's wishes, who raves at every reminder of the Resurrection, and whose sole aim in regard to the Sunday Sabbath is to destroy its Resurrection testimony? r Note the almost raving demand of the editor of the Catholic Mirror, that Protestants give up the Sunday Sabbath or recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. But first, we would like to know how Protestants are to give up the Sunday Sab- bath without recognizing the authority of the Catho- lic Church ? 330 SABBATH THEOLOGY Catholics find no direct command in the Bible for the Sunday Sabbath, hence they claim that it was established by the apostles. But they claim, also, that the apostles founded the Catholic Church; hence they claim that the Sunday Sabbath was es- tablished by the authority of the Catholic (or Apos- tolic) Church in its appointment by the apostles themselves — not by a pope hundreds of years later, as Adventists claim to suit their own theory. To give up the Sunday Sabbath, because Catholics claim that it was established by the authority of the Catholic Church, is to acknowledge that claim; which, in turn, is to acknowledge the claim back of it on which it is based, namely, that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church ; which, in turn, is to acknowledge that Protestants have no right to the title of Christian Church. This is, practically, the acknowledgment Adven- tists make. The only possible way for Protestants to repudiate the authority of the Catholic Church on this question is for them to keep the Sun- day Sabbath. Keeping it, as they do, in recognition of the Resurrection of Christ is not keeping it in recognition of the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholics keep the Sunday Sabbath primarily in recognition of the authority of the Catholic Church and only secondarily, if at all, in recognition of the Resurrection of Christ. Protestants keep the Sun- day Sabbath solely in recognition of the Resurrec- tion of Christ without marring its Resurrection lus- ter by the recognition of any human authority. The keeping of the Sunday Sabbath by Protes- tants, instead of being (as claimed) a recognition of ANSWEE TO ROME^S CHALLENGE 331 the authority of the Catholic Church, only accentu- ates their non-recognition. Else why this ranting and raving against the Protestants for keeping the Sunday Sabbath? In all of the above quotations, it is most unequivo- cally claimed that the Sunday Sabbath was estab- lished by the authority of the Catholic Church. Then for Protestants to give up the Sunday Sabbath, in the face of these claims, would be a most positive acknowledgment on their part that the Sunday Sab- bath was established by the Catholic Clmrch, and not by the Resurrection. The effect of this ac- knowledgment would be to turn the testimony of the Sunday Sabbath away from the Resurrection to the authority of the Catholic Church, which would, no doubt, be highly satisfactory to his ^'Satanic ma- jesty.'' We have given abundant proof, in the preceding chapters, that the Sunday Sabbath is the only Sab- bath that has now any Bible authority in a day ap- pointed sense. In replying to ^ ^ Rome 's Challenge, ' ' we may state at the outset that it contains no original arguments, but only the already threadbare arguments of the Seventh-day Adventists. All of which we have al- ready fully discussed. We will quote from Rome's Challenge, page 11:' ^'Thus the Sabbath (Saturday) from Genesis to Revelation;'' page 5, *^The Bible, which, from Gene- sis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine;" page 24, ^^ God's written word enjoins his worship to be observed on Saturday, absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically." 332 SABBATH THEOLOGY These assertions necessarily assume that the Sab- bath law, or fourth commandment, in itself, fixed the seventh day of the week (Saturday) as the only true Sabbath. The only argument attempted to sustain this assumption was the fact that the Jews have kept the Saturday Sabbath in unbroken succession from the giving of the Law to the present time. This, however, does not prove that the day of the Jewish Sabbath was not fixed by the manna, instead of by the Sabbath law; for the day was fixed by the manna sometime before the Law was given on Sinai. We quote again from Rome's Challenge (pages 9, 10), ^'The Bible being the only teacher recognized by the Biblical Christian, the Old Testament failing to point out a change of day, and yet another day than Saturday being kept 'holy' by the Biblical world, it is surely incumbent on the reformed Chris- tians to point out in the pages of the New Testament the new divine decrees repealing that of Saturday and substituting that of Sunday. ' ' It is plain to be seen, that behind this quotation is the assumption that the Sabbath law, or fourth com- mandment, was the decree of God establishing the Saturday Sabbath. We have already shown that the Saturday Sabbath was established by the manna, and not by the Sabbath law, and therefore there is no decree, establishing Saturday as the Sabbath, to be repealed. If the Saturday Sabbath was not established by a decree, but by God's providence in the Exodus as the reason for, and in the manna as the appointment of, then we can only, in reason, look to God's provi- dence for the establishment of the Sunday Sabbath ; ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 333 and we find it in the Resurrection as the season for, and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pente- cost as the appointment of. The providence is as clear and unmistakable in the latter case as in the former. What more can be demanded? The Saturday Sabbath, as commemorative of the Exodus, was distinctly and only Jewish, and there- fore only a Jewish ordinance, and Paul definitely in- cluded it in the ordinances that were blotted out find nailed to the cross (Col. 2 : 14-16). This is sufficient repeal, if repeal were necessary ; and, if repealed, a new day-fixing providence is ne- cessary to fix the day of the Sabbath from that point onward. What was the Providence? Only one answer is possible — the Resurrection. Therefore the Sunday Sabbath is the only Sabbath that has now any Bible authority in a day appointed sense. When Catholics and Adventists prove that the Saturday Sabbath was established by a decree of God, instead of by His providence, it will be time enough for them to demand that Protestants point out a decree repealing that of Saturday and sub- stituting that of Sunday. We quote again from Homers Challenge, (page 10), *^In one instance, the Redeemer refers to him- self as the ^Lord of the Sabbath,' but during the whole record of his life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday), he never once hinted at a desire to change it/' Christ said, ^^The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." (Mark 2 : 27,28. 334 Sabbath theology See also Matt. 12 : 8 and Luke 6:5.) Christ's claim to the title is here based on the fact, that as the (one only universal) Son of man, He was the rightful Lord of that which was made for man's good. Christ is ''Lord of the Sabbath,'' not only as the Son of man, but also as the Son of God who instituted the Sabbath. He who instituted the Sab- bath surely best knows the true meaning and pur- pose of the Sabbath, and He said, ' ' The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." He also best knows the true meaning of the Sabbath law. If the Sabbath law was never intended to fix the day of the Sabbath, then we can be sure that He referred to the institution, not the day, when He claimed to be ''Lord of the Sabbath." Yet at the same time. He undoubtedly recognized the existing day of the Sabbath as the day then in force by rea son of the manna appointment. The fact that .Christ himself kept the Jewish Sabbath before His 9eath argues nothing; for it would be absurd to ex- pect Him needlessly to change the day of the Sab- bath before the proper time, and to make it the me- morial of the Resurrection before the fact existed. He came to fulfil the law, and so kept the Jewish Sabbath and all the rest of the ceremonial law, til] it was fulfilled in Himself on the cross. Just as well argue that we must keep all of the ceremonial law because He kept it, as that we must keep the Jew^ ish Sabbath because He kept it. Christ was on earth for forty days after His resur- rection (Acts 1 : 3), yet there is not the slightest hint that He recognized the Jewish Sabbath during that time; but we have two distinct records of His ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 335 j 4 meeting with the disciples on the first day of the week.— Luke 24 : 33-40 and John 20 : 25-29, (both of which are recognized by the author of Rome's Challenge). It is objected that there is no mention of prayer, praise^ or reading of the scriptures at these meetings, and therefore that they did not meet for worship. It is not a question of what those meetings were for, but what they ivere. What need was there for reading the scriptures when the great teacher was in their midst ? And what need for formal prayer and praise when their hearts were flowing over with prayer and praise! But in the first meeting it is plainly stated (Luke 24 : 44-46) that He explained to them the law and the prophets, and opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures; and in the second meeting Thomas was converted, and we can be sure that only matters of the highest spiritual importance were discussed. However, it is not the character of the meetings, but the recognition of the day, that is the point in question; and the fact stands, that there were at least two occasions on which Christ met with the disciples on the first day of the week after His Res- urrection, but not a single hint that He met with them on the Jewish Sabbath. This fact implies, at least, that He recognized the day of the Sabbath to be changed. Why did not Christ after the Eesurrection estab- lish the Sunday Sabbath? It was already estab- lished in the Resurrection, so far as the event fur- nishing the reason was concerned. If the Sabbath law did not ^x the day of the Sabbath, then Christ 336 SABBATH THEOLOGY could not give a command changing the day without misinterpreting the Sababth law, and this is suffici- ent reason why He gave no command for changing the day. If the Jewish Sabbath was not fixed by law, we could not expect the Sunday Sabbath to be fixed by law. Christ said to His disciples, just before His death, ^ ^ I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: * * * and he will show you things to come.'' (John 16 : 12,13). Christ then left many things to be revealed to them by the Spirit of Truth, after his departure, because, evidently, they were not yet sufficiently spiritually minded, and were still too wrapped up in Jewish prejudices to receive them. The Jewish Sabbath w^as to the Jews their most sacred institution. Now, if Christ had positively and definitely made Sunday the Christian Sabbath, that fact would, under the circumstances, have be- come to the Jews the most prominent issue of the Gospel, overshadowing the one all important issue. Christ commanded the disciples to preach the Gos- pel, not the Sabbath. What effect would their preaching have on the Jews (to whom they were first sent) if they had to overcome their Sabbath preju- dices before they would even listen to the Gospel? Since the fixed day element of the Sabbath was an economic, not a moral element, then, from an econ- omic standpoint, in view of the economic conditions involved, manifestly the most natural and effective method of establishing the Sunday Sabbath without ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 337 needlessly retarding the early progress of tlie Gos- pel, and without giving the first day economic ele- ment undue prominence — detracting from the one all important issue — was for the Spirit of truth to lead gradually the Jewish Christians into the true understanding of God^s purpose in regard to the day of the Sabbath by gradually removing their Jewish prejudices, — which in the nature of things could not at once be removed, — and thus allowing, by natural process, the Jewish Sabbath to give place to the Christian Sabbath. This is evidently the only natural method, and if the best method, as history testifies, we can be sure that it was the only method Christ would have used, for He would have used only the best method. Because God often brings His purposes to pass gradually does not prove that the purposes were not definite in His mind at the beginning. Then because the change of the day of the Sababth was brought to pass gradually does not prove that the change did not definitely take place in God's purpose at the Kesurrection. Jewish Christians continued to ob- serve all the Jewish ordinances for many years after the death of Christ, but this does not prove that they were not blotted out and nailed to the cross, as Paul said, in Col. 2 : 14. If Christ held the view in regard to the day of the Sabbath that Catholics and Adventists hold, i. e., that the fixed day element of the Sabbath was the all essential point of the Sabbath law, and could not be changed without repealing that law and substitut- ing another. He undoubtedly would have done so (as He had authority to do) if He meant to change the 338 SABBATH THEOLOGY day. The fact that He did not, only proves that He held no such narrow view. On the other hand, if, in the mind of Christ, the exact day of the Sabbath was only an economic, not a moral element, and therefore not involved in the moral law, and that changing the day in no sense changed the institution of the Sabbath or the moral law, and since He foreknew that the change would come to pass, as it has come to pass, what occasion was there for Him to even hint at a desire to change it I Now, since Adventists and Catholics are so free to ask ^^why Christ did not change the day of the Sabbath, '^ we will ask, ^^Why did He not warn the disciples against the change (since He foreknew it) when He warned them, in Matthew 24, in regard to less important matters, if the change of the day of the Sabbath was the greatest calamity that ever be- fell the Church (as Adventists think)? Whatever answer they may give may possibly answer their own question. In the first case, there was no need ; but in the second case there was, if the supposition be true. It is not necessary here to notice the less import- ant arguments attempted in Rome's Challenge, since they have all been fully answered in the preceding chapters. liowever, in regard to Eev. 1 : 10, Acts 20 : 7 and 1 Cor. 16 : 2, we will add the testimonv of the Catholic Dictionary by Addis and Arnold, which, after noting the above references, says, that ' ^ These texts seem to indicate that Sunday was already a sacred day on which deeds of love were specially ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 339 suitable. Heb. 10 : 25 sbows this much, that the Christians, when the epistle was written, had regu- lar days of assembling. The scriptural references given above show that the observance of Sunday had begun in the apostolic age : but even were scrip- ture silent, tradition would put this point beyond all doubt." Thus ^^ Rome's Challenge^ ^ contradicts the Catholic Dictionary. Which is the best Catho- lic authority? Rome's Challenge stands wholly on an assumed foundation, namely, that the fourth Commandment fixed the day of the Sabbath. But it is necessary to prove the foundation before the arguments can be called arguments. This the author does not even attempt to do. To 'prove the foundation, the author must first prove that God rested on the seventh day of the first week of time. To prove this, he must prove that time began with the first day of Creation. To do this, he must prove, in the face of the Bible, nature, and reason, that the Creation days were twenty-four hour days. Then he must prove that God did not fix the day of the Sabbath for the Israelites by His providence in the giving of the manna instead of by His law. Then he must prove that the words ^^of the week'^ after ^^ seventh day," in the Law, are nec- essarily understood. To do this, he must prove: first, That in Gen. 2 : 3, God sanctified the seventh day on which He rested, not to the completion of the Creation model to be copied, but in a fixed day sense only; second. That in Ex. 20 : 10, the word *^ wherefore" refers, not to the whole unbroken clause including the entire Creation week as a model, 340 SABBATH THEOLOGY 9 I but only to tliat part of it referring to the seventli day on which. God rested, as the reason for blessing the Sabbath day. And, finally, unless he has fully established every point so far, he must prove that he has a divine commission to insert the words ^^of the week,'' which God accidentally (?) omitted. The author of Rome's Challenge, on page 6, says, '^Neither is the discussion of this paramount sub- ject above the capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution : — 1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy? 2. Has the New Testament, modified by precept or practice, the original command? 3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping ^'holy'' the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not? '*To the above three questions we pledge our- selves to furnish as many intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold the de- formity of error." In spite of his flaunted vindication of truth, the truth confronts him, that until he proves the assump- tion (that the Sabbath law fixes the day of the Sab- bath) which is plainly behind each one of these ques- tions, and which he has not even attempted to prove, he has not (yet) furnished a single intelligent answer to any one of them. Rome's Challenge concludes with the following (character study) remarks, *^ Should any of the ANSWER TO Rome's challenge 341 reverend parsons, who are habituated to howl so vociferously over every real or assumed desecration of that pious fraud, the Bible Sabbath, think well of entering a protest against our logical and scriptural dissection of their mongrel pet, we can promise them that any reasonable attempt on their part to gather up the disjecta membra of the hybrid, and to restore to it a galvanized existence, will be met with genuine cordiality and respectful consideration on our part. ^^But we can assure our readers that we know the reverent hov/lers too well to expect a solitary bark from them in this instance. And they know us too well to subject themselves to the mortification which a further dissection of this anti-scriptural question would necessarily entail. Their policy now it to 'lay low' and they are sure to adopt it.'' Rome's Challenge is published by the Seventh-day Adventists in support of their **Mark of the Beast" doctrine. Their pamphlet entitled, ''The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast" (page 22), says, "This {Rome's Challenge) has been scattered broadcast over the United States, and of the mil- lions of professed Protestants, we have yet to know of the first one to rise up and deny these things and give proof for the denial." Since Rome^s Challenge contains no original argu- ments, but is even far inferior to any of the Adven- tist's own standard works on the subject, therefore, any sufficient answer to the Adventists, of which there are a number, is also a sufficient answer to it ; and the mere fact that no one has taken sufficient notice of it to answer it, certainly need not be taken as proof of its unansw^erable character. 342 SABBATH THEOLOGY / We have answered it here, merely because it fur- nishes a remarkable proof of the alliance between the Catholics and Adventists in their mutual effort to destroy the Kesurrection testimony of the Chris- tian Sabbath, by trying to make it testify to the authority of the Catholic Church instead. Knowing that it is the power of the Eesurrection that makes Satan tremble, and that he raves at every reminder of it, and that his only purpose in regard to the Sunday Sabbath is to destroy its Ees- urrection testimony, and that, if he can make people believe that it is the mark of his own authority or the authority of the Catholic Church, he has most effectively accomplished his purpose, we can be sure that the efforts of Catholics and Adventists meet with his most hearty approval. Their avowed an- tagonism only makes their alliance all the more ef- fective to the carrying out of Satan's purpose. CHAPTER XIX. THE DECALOGUE The Bible plainly states that the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, was spoken by the voice of God (Ex. 20 : 1), and written by the finger of God on tables of stone (Ex. 31 : 18). No other code of laws on record was ever thus so directly transmitted from God to man. This fact naturally gives it pre- eminence as a summary of God 's moral law. Because it was given to the Israelites makes it no less a summary of the moral law, for moral laws are unchangeable in their nature so long as the rea- sons therefor exist. If it was once a summary of God's moral law for man, then it must ever remain so; for God never changes, and man's moral rela- tion to God and to his fellow-man is ever the same. If the Decalogue expressed man's moral relation to God and to his fellow-man at the time it was given, then it can never cease to express that relation so long as that relation exists. The exact wording of the precepts of the Decalogue or their exact order is a matter of no consequence, so long as the meaning is unchanged. 344 SABBATH theology"^ Those wlio tliink to abolisli the Decalogue as be-^ longing only to the Old Testament, immediately re- store all but the Sabbath precept in language of the New Testament, claiming that there is no precept in the New Testament for the Sabbath. Adventists fitly liken this process to cutting off ten fingers to get rid of a bad one, and sticking nine back on again; and no amount of ridicule can de- stroy the force of this illustration. Abolishing a precept and immediately restoring the sense of it is not abolishing it in any real sense. Such trans- actions would contradict God's nature. If God abolished the Decalogue, or any part of it, then it was abolished in a real, not in an unreal, sense. Will any one assert that the moral principles involved in the Decalogue were abolished? or that the exact wording of its precepts is essential? or object to the wording as given in Exodus 20? Un- less the wording of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 can be improved on, there is no reason to object to it as there worded. Why should Christ re-enact the Sabbath precept if it was never repealed, and especially as it was already abused in overstrict observance? Christ's claiming to be ^^Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2 : 28), his efforts to correct the prevalent abuses of the Sabbath (Matt. 12 : 1-13; John 5 : 2-11; 9 : 6-14), and his teaching the true purpose and nature of the Sabbath (Mark 2 : 23-27), prove, unmistakably, that he recognized the Sabbath precept as then in force and that he had no intention of abolishing it. The evident purpose of the doctrine that the Deca- logue was abolished and reinstated in the New Testa- THE DECALOGUE 345 ment with the Sabbath precept left out, is to get rid of the Sabbath precept in order to get rid of the .Tewish Sabbath, — thinking thus to harmonize the fact that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished. Those who hold this doctrine, evidently read the Sabbath precept, just as Adventists do, as if it said, ^'The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath," whereas, it says, *^The seventh day is the Sabbath;'^ thus confusing the economic, or fixed day, element of the Sabbath with the moral, or every seventh day, element, and failing to recognize the fact that the Sabbath precept, as a part of the moral law, deals only with the moral element of the Sabbath. If the day of the Jewish Sabbath was fixed by the giving of the manna, and not by the Sabbath pre- cept, then the Jewish (seventh day of the week) Sabbath could be abolished without affecting the Sabbath precept. In Eom. 3 : 31, Paul saj^s, *^Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: Yea, we estab- lish the law.'^ Here Paul distinctly denies any in- tention of teaching that the law was abolished. Now, in the face of his plain denial, it would be unfair to interpret any of his writings to mean the abolition of the law. We may, however, safely infer that he meant the moral law, not the ceremonial law, when he said, ^'Yea, we establish the law;'' for he plainly teaches that the ceremonial law was abolished. And no one questions the fact that the ceremonial law, which consisted of types and shadows, was fulfilled and ended in Christ, and therefore abolished. In Eph. 2 : 15, in referring to Christ, Paul said, ^'Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the 346 ' SABBATH THEOLOGY law of commandments contained in ordinances;" and again, in Col. 2 : 14, ^^ Blotting out the hand- writing of ordinances that was against ns, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nail- ing it to his cross." The specific, or distinctive, meaning of ordinance is, ^^An established rite or ceremony." That Paul used the word in this sense is evident ; for, if he meant the whole law, why did he specify the ** com- mandments contained in ordinances!" He thus specified, or distinguished, certain commandments from others not contained in ordinances ; but unless he used the word in its specific, or distinctive, sense, he could not thus make a distinction. Besides, Paul always uses the word ^ ' law ' ' in referring to the law in general, or to the moral part of it. Hence, when he uses the word *^ ordinances," he can only refer to the ceremonial part of the law. Lastly, we must remember that Paul distictly denied any intention of teaching that the moral law was abolished, and we must not make him contradict himself. 1. — In Bom. 14 : 5, Paul says, *'One man esteem- eth one day above another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." 2. — Col. 2 : 16, *^Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." 3. — Gal. 4 : 10,11, ^^Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." These three texts are supposed by some to teach, THE DECALOGUE 347 by inference, that tlie Sabbath law was abolished. They certainly do teach that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished. The most, however, that can justly be inferred (so far as the Sabbath question was in- volved) is that Paul meant to teach, not that the Sabbath law was abolished, but that it did not fix the day of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was not intended to be a burden but a blessing. And thus Paul's teaching was in perfect harmony with the Sabbath law, and with Christ's teaching when He said, ^ ^ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Paul was contending against the influence of the Judaizers, as the whole connection shows; and the Jewish Sabbath was plainly one of the questions involved. Perhaps the first text (Rom. 14 : 5) most clearly shows Paul's position on the Sabbath question, as the Sabbath question is here ]plainly involved. Now, if Paul held the doctrine, that the Sabbath law was abolished, and taght it elsewhere, as some claim, why did he miss such a perfect opportunity for teaching it here? Can there be any stronger inference that he held no such doctrine I The Jewish Sabbath was a standing question of dispute between the Jewish and the Gentile Chris- tians, and the dispute would naturally resolve itself into a dispute over the meaning of the Sabbath law : the Jews holding, as Adventists do to-day, that it made the seventh day of the week holy above other days of the week, as the only true Sabbath; the Gentiles holding, as the great majority of Christians do to-day, that the Sabbath of the law was an institu- tion, not a fixed unchangeable day of the week^ and 348 SABBATH THEOLOGY therefore every day of the week was alike holy in itself; and thus it was, that ^'one man esteemeth one day above another; and another esteemeth every day alike.'' Now, if the dispute was over the mean- ing of the Sabbath law, as it evidently was, then if: could not have been over the abolition of the Sab- bath laAV, and hence the passage furnishes no argu- ment that the Sabbath law was abolished. The Christian Sabbath was not based on the the- ory that one day was above another as holier in it- self, but on the theory that every day was alike holy in itself. Its fixed day element was purely and simply a memorial of the Resurrection of Christ, and there could be no dispute in regard to what day of the week was most suitable as a memorial of that event. There was thus no ground of dispute between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in regard to the Lord's day, which both observed in commemora- tion of the Eesurrection. But the Jewish Christians observed also the whole Jewish ceremonial law, including the Jewish Sab- bath, because they thought that the Christian reli- gion was but a new phase of the Jewish religion, and still under the Jewish law. They insisted, therefore, that the Gentile Christians should also keep the Jewish Sabbath and the rest of the ceremonial law. But the Gentile Christians thought that keeping one day satisfied the demands of the Sabbath law, and that the Jewish Sabbath was a needless burden. Hence the dispute would inevitably resolve into the doctrinal issue regarding the seventh day of the vv^eek as holier in itself than other days, which the Jewish Christians held; and Paul settled the ques- THE DECALOGUE 349 tion decidedly against the doctrine, yet with due respect to the honest convictions of others as a rule for their own conduct. In the preceding verse he said, ^^Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.'' In the second passage (Col. 2 : 16) Paul's words, **Let no man therefore judge you * * * in re- spect of the Sabbath days,'' is in harmony with tlie preceding and also in harmony with the view that the Sabbath law does not fix the day of the Sab- bath, and implies only that Paul held this view of the Sabbath law. That he had in mind only the Jew- ish Sabbath, is evident in the fact that the word *^ Sabbath" always referred to the Jewish Sabbath; for, to avoid confusion, the Christian Sabbath was always called the Lord's day. Hence Paul's words do not imply that the Sabbath law was abolished, but only that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished. The word ^^ therefore" refers bacK to the 14th verse, where Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was blotted out end nailed to the cross, thus plainly including the Jewish Sabbath with the ordinances that were blotted out. On pages 266-268 we showed that Paul referred to the Jewish weekly Sabbaths, and not to the annual Sabbaths. In the third passage before us (Gal. 4 : 10,11), the observance of ^'days" (Jewish weekly Sabbaths) **and months" (new moons), ^^and times" (yearly feasts), ^^and years" (Sabbatical years) belonged to the Jewish ritual, or handwriting of ordinances, which Paul said was blotted out. This is the same numeration, reversely — omitting the Sabbatical years — as given in Col. 2 : 16. In observing them, 350 SABBATH THEOLOGY the Galatians were attacHng a certain amount of saving merit to tliem, — thinking thns to be justified by the law, — ^which was directly contrary to Paul's teaching. Paul told them, in the next chapter (Gal. 5:4), ^^ Christ is become of no effect unto you, who- soever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.'' Hence he said, ^^I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." So far as the weekly Sababth is here involved, Paul had in mind only the Jewish Sabbath; for he would not thus have classified the Christian Sabbath with the other Jewish holy days, and it would not be just to interpret Paul's words to include the Chris- tian Sabbath if he did not have the Christian Sab- bath in mind when he wrote them. Now, if Paul had in mind only the Jewish Sabbath, his words cannot be taken to imply that the Sabbath law was abolished, unless it can first be proven that abol- ishing the Jewish Sabbath is equivalent to abolish- ing the Sabbath law ; but since the Sabbath law does not fix the day of the Sabbath, then abolishing the Jewish Sabbath does not affect the Sabbath law. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Christian ordinances, but no one would think of including them in the handwriting of ordinances, which Paul said was blotted out and nailed to the cross. The Christian Sabbath is just as much of a Christian ordinance, and Paul thought no more of including it with the Jewish ceremonial law than he did baptism and the Lord's Supper. Paul could have found no fault with the Gentiles for keeping the Christian Sabbath (in its fixed day sense) purely and simply in commemoration of the THE DECALOGUE 351" Resurrection of Christ, and (in its every seventh' day sense) in commemoration of Creation as the proportion of time commanded by the Sabbath law to set apart for rest, worship, and spiritual growth ; for there would have been nothing in this observance contrary to Paul's teaching. Paul censured them only for putting their faith in the law, instead of in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The whole burden of PauPs letter to the Gala- tians, and also a large part of that to the Eomans, was the great doctrine of ^* Justification by Faith" in Jesus Christ. He says, ** Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law : for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.'* — Gal. 2 : 16. ^^ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. ' ' — Gal. 3 : 13. ** Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law: ye are fallen from grace." — Gal. 5 : 4. *^ Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." — Eom. 10 : 4. ' ^ There is therefore now no condemna- tion to them which are in Christ Jesus." — Rom. |8 : 1. Read also Rom. 3 : 19-31 and Galatians, 3rd chapter. But does the doctrine of ** Justification by Faith" in Jesus Christ abolish the law? Paul says, that it establishes the law; for in Rom. 3 : 31 he says, *^Do we then make void the law through faith? God for- bid: yea, we establish the law." **The law is not made for a righteous man, but t^t 52 SABBATH THEOLOGY for the lawless and disobedient.'^ — 1 Tim. 1 : 9. * ^ But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not nnder the law;'' for, ^'The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.''— Gal. 5 : 18,22,23. ^^Ye are not under the law, but under grace." — Rom. 6 : 14. ^'Ye also are become dead to the law. * * * we are delivered from the law." — Rom. 7 : 4,6. These texts also, when fairly interpreted, tend rather to establish than to make void the law. The fact that the law was not made for a righteous man, but only for the lawless and disobedience, evidently could not abolish the law any more than it could pre- vent the law when first made. * ^ If ye be in the Spir- it" is the condition of deliverance from the law, for the fruits of the spirit are in perfect harmony with the law; and hence, so long as Christians are led of the Spirit, they cannot disobey the law. But the condition of deliverance necessarily involves the con- tinuance of the same law from which the condition delivers ; for the condition can only continue by rea- son of the continuance of the law. While Christians are thus delivered from the law, they ' ' are not under the law, but under grace ; ' ' but if the law were abolished, grace would be abolished also, for grace exists only because of the law, and the same law too from which the deliverance is ef- fected. Christians are not at liberty to abuse their liberty; for Paul says, ^^Ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. 5 : 13). Christians *^are become dead to the law" only in the sense that the law is practi- THE DECALOGUE ^ 353 cally a dead letter to tbose wlio keep it, not from compulsion, but from inclination. ^'Wlien the Gentiles, wliicli have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the lav/, these, hav- ing not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts. ' ' — Eom. 2 : 14,15. Here Paul recognized the fact that the law v/as written in the hearts of those Gentiles who do by nature the things contained in the law, though they had not the law in its outwardly writ- ten form. Notice that Paul recognized that the law written in their hearts was the same law as the out- wardly written law to which he evidently referred. This shows that the Decalogue, or Ten Command- ments, to which Paul evidently referred in particu- lar, was but an outward expression of the law of God written (though often almost erased by neglect) in the hearts of the human race. In referring to God's promise to Abraham con- cerning Christ and the inheritance, Paul said, * ^ The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none etfect." — Gal. 3 : 17. Evidently, the word ^'law'' is here used, not in a law-beginning sense, but in a law-giving sense ; for Abraham kept God 's com- mandments and laws (Gen. 26 : 5). Hence God's law, given to the Israelites at Sinai four hundred and thirty years after Abraham, was not the begin- ning of God's law, but only an after expression of it in the form of a definite code of laws known as the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue. There is no ar- gument here that the Decalogue was not the same law in substance as that which existed at the time 354 SABBATH THEOLOGY of Abraham, both being the law of God, they must necessarily consist of the same moral principles, and therefore in reality be one and the same law. God promised Abraham that in his seed (Christ) all nations of the earth should be blessed (Gen. 22 : 18). This promise extended to all the world. But when He gave the law to the Israelites, four hun- dred and thirty years after, He promised that if they would obey His law. He would make them a peculiar treasure unto Himself, above all people (Ex. 19 : 5). This promise extended only to the Israelites. Paul 's argument was, that this last promise (represented by the Law), which included only Jews, could not disannul the former promise made to Abraham, which included all the world ; that the promise made first reached beyond the promise nlade last, for God would not make any promise that disannulled a former promise; and therefore, through faith in Christ, all, without distinction, come under the prom- ise to Abraham. The law was given as the condition of God's prom- ise to the Israelites, and hence it stood, in a sense, for the promise ; and that Paul used it in this sense is evident from the fact that there was nothing in the nature of the law itself that could possibly conflict with God's promise to Abraham. But the promise to the Israelites could be and was practically con- strued by the Jews as disannulling the promise to Abraham. ' In Ezek. 20 : 11, God said, **I gave them my stat- utes." God could not have given something that had no previous existence. A thing must first he before it can be given. Hence every precept of the Deca- THE DECALOGUE 355 t logue, in so far as it involved a distinct and separate moral principle, had a distinct and separate exist- ence as one of God's statutes before it was given on Sinai by the voice of God, and written on tables of stone. A moral precept is made and given existence by the conditions that make it a moral necessity. Some of the precepts of the Decalogue, in their very na- ture, existed before the world was created, and hence binding on the angels. Others did not exist till the conditions involved in human interrelationship gave them existence. If these conditions existed, as they did, from the beginning of the human race, then the moral precepts growing out of these conditions nec- essarily existed also from the beginning of the hu- man race. Now, if the Decalogue existed — though not in an outwardly written form — before the begin- ning of the Jewish dispensation, it could not be af- fected by the ending of the Jewish dispensation. ' Another line of argument used in attempting to prove that the Decalogue was abolished is drawn from the two covenants. Jeremiah foretold (Jer. 31 : 31-34) that the Lord would make a new cove- nant ; and the new covenant necessarily abolished the old (Heb. 8 : 6-13; 2 Cor. 3 : 3-18). In Deut. 4 : 13; 9 : 11 ; Ex. 34 : 28, the Decalogue is called the cove- nant ; and this fact is supposed to identify it with the old covenant that was abolished. A covenant is an agreement, or contract, between parties. The Decalogue, in itself, is not of the na- ture of an agreement between God and the Israelites, but it does contain the terms of that agreement. 356 SABBATH THEOLOGY I The writing which contains the terms of an agree- ment is called the contract or covenant ; and in this sense only, can the Decalogue be called the covenant which God made with the Israelites at Sinai. *^And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the cove- nant, which the Lord hath made with you concern- ing all these words.'' — ^Ex. 24 : 8. Then the cove- nant was not ^'all these words,'' but the agreement concerning them. *^And the Lord said unto Moses, Write these words : for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel . . And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." — Ex. 34 : 27,28. Here we see that the Ten Command- ments are called *Hhe words of the covenant,'' not because that in themselves they constituted the cove- nant, but because ^' after the tenor of these words" God made the covenant ; and this furnishes a key to the interpretation of those other passages in which the Decalogue is called the covenant. What then was the covenant, or agreement, that God made with Israel at Sinai? ^'Now therefore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people" (Ex. 19 : 5). Here we have the condi- tion of the covenant, — ^'If ye will obey my voice,"' — and also the promise that constituted God's side of the covenant. It only remains for Israel to accept the condition and bind themselves by a promise to obey God's voice. *^And all the people answered together and said. All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the peo- ple unto the Lord" (verse 8). THE DECALOGUE 357 This is the preliminary stage of the covenant. They have promised to obey God's voice; but God had not yet uttered His voice in the Ten Command- ments : so that the definite conditions of the covenant liave not yet been made known to them ; and the cove- nant is not completed in the strictest sense till the conditions are clearly stated in detail. God then spake the Ten Commandments with His own voice in the hearing of all the people (Ex. 20 : 1 ; Deut. 4 : 33; 5 : 22). Then Moses went up into the mount and God gave him judgments relating to every detail of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 21-23). *^And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments ; and all the peo- ple answered with one voice, and said, All the words v\hich the Lord hath said we will do'' (Ex. 24 : 3). Moses then wrote all the words of the Lord in a book, built an altar, offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord, sprinkled the altar with blood, and took the book of the covenant and read it to all the people. Again they said, ^^All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. ' ' . . . And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ^^ Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you con- cerning all these words" (Ex. 24 : 4-8). Thus the covenant was formally ratified by the people through Moses as their mediator. It is evident then, that the covenant, in the pri- mary sense, was the agreement that God made with the Israelites, and that the Ten Commandments was what God required and what the Israelites promised to obey as the condition of the covenant^ and when 358 SABBATH THEOLOGY the Decalogue is spoken of as the covenant, it is only in the sense that it is the condition of the covenant. ^'Behold the 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. ' '— Jer. 31 : 31,32. That it was the agreement, or contract, not the Ten Commandments, that is here referred to as **the covenant that I made with their fathers,'' is clearly shown; first. In the fact that the Ten Command- ments, merely as a code of laws, did not make God a husband to the Israelites, but His contract with them, based on the condition that they observe those laws, did; second. It was only by the Israelites breaking the condition of the covenant, that the cove- nant could be abolished, for God's promise could not fail. Hence, the covenant was abolished because of the disobedience of the Israelites. Now, if the covenant that was abolished was simply the Ten Commandments, then we have the law of God abolished by the disobedience of the Is- raelites ; and hence the law of God did not depend on the authority of God, but on the obedience of the Israelites. This is the position that those must take, who claim that the covenant that was abolished was the Ten Commandments. Again, *^The law of the Lord is perfect." — Ps. 19 : 7-11; 111 : 7,8; 119 : 96; James 1 : 25; 2 : 8-12. THE DECALOGUE 359 But Paul says, that the first covenant was not fault- less (Ileb. 8 : 7). Now, since the Law is perfect, and this covenant not perfect, they cannot be identi- cal. If the first covenant were perfect, it could not be improved ; but Paul says that the new covenant is *^ established on better promises'' (Heb. 8:6), and hence is an improvement on the old. The old covenant was faulty in that it was not adapted to the helpless condition of fallen man; but it served its purpose in showing man his helpless condition, and causing him to look forward to the promised deliverance foreshadowed in the cere- monial law, and thus prepared the way for the com- ing of Christ and the establishment of the new cove- nant. All of which goes to prove that the old cove- nant, which was abolished, was not the law itself, but simply a contract between God and His people, the conditions of which was inevitably destined to be broken in the very inability of the people to keep it. *^But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.'' — Jer. 31 : 33. Writing the law ^4n their hearts" is certainly quite the oppo- site of abolishing it. Neither is there any warrant here for assuming that it was a different law from that written on tables of stone. Jeremiah could only have had in mind the one code of laws known to him as the law of God : that code of laws spoken by the voice of God and written by the finger of God. Neither are we to suppose, on the other hand, that the law of God consisted of certain set unchangeable 360 SABBATH THEOLOGY words in a set uncliangeable order, and that it would cease to be tlie same law if it was put in different words without changing the meaning. The sub- stance of the law is the moral precepts contained in it, and which do not depend on the exact wording. The two copies of the law (Ex. 20 : 3-17 and Deut. 5 : 7-21) are worded quite differently, yet they are both the same law: the first as spoken by God, and the second as written by Him on tables of stone. — As shown in Chapter IX. The law of God, as written on the hearts of His people, is evidently not in any set words, but in tlie sense. However, when it becomes necessary to put it in words for instruction, we cannot improve on the wording in which God himself has put it. No one can fail to recognize that the law written ^'in their hearts,'' in Jeremiah's prophecy, was meant to contrast the law written *^in tables of stone," and hence the same law. It was only from this prophecy that Paul could have drawn the ex- pression, ^^Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Cor. 3 : 3). Paul here evi- dently means to draw a contrast, not between two laws, but between the receptacles in which the same law was written. Again, he says, in verse 6, *'Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament (covenant), not of the letter, but of the spirit ; for the letter Idll- eth, but the spirit givetli life." Now, if Paul here meant the letter of one law and the spirit of another, he would certainly have said so. The unmistakable teaching is, that the spirit of the law is the basis of the new covenant just as the letter of the law was the THE DECiiLOGUE 361 basis of the old, and that in both cases it was the same law. Paul could only have referred to the law when he said, ' ' The letter killeth, but the spirit giv- etli life, ' ' and only to the same law in both cases. In the next two verses he says, *^But if the min- istration of death (the letter that killeth), written and engraven in stone, was glorious . . . which glory was to be done away. How shall not the min- istration of the spirit be rather glorious 1 ' ' Paul is here plainly contrasting the glory of the ministra- tion of the letter of the law with the glory of the min- istration of the spirit of the law, and states, incident- ally, that the glory of the former was to be done away (by reason of the glory that excelleth, as shown in verse 10) : a truth that no one will deny. Now note particularly that Paul does not say, nor even imply, that the law written and engraven on stones was to be done away, but that the glory of the ministration of the letter of that law was to be done away. Death is passed on all men in that all have sinned (Rom. 5 : 12) ; for ^Hlie wages of sin is death'' (Rom. 6 : 23) and ^^sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4): hence the ministration of the letter of the law, which was ^'written and engraven in stones,'' became the ministration of death; for death is the penalty of the law, and the letter of the law, therefore, necessarily passed the death sentence on all who had disobeyed the law. But Jesus tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9); He ^^gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6); *^If one died for all, then were all dead" (2 Cor. 5 : 14) ; ^ * The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 362 . SABBATH THEOLOGY US alP' (Isa. 53 : 6) ; '^Christ died for our sins'' (1 Cor. 15 : 3) ; thus the ministration of the letter of the law, which killeth, was done away, and the minis- tration of the spirit, which giveth life, was estab- lished, not by abolishing the law, but by Jesus bear- ing ^^our sins in his own body" and dying in our stead, thus sparing us and at the same time vindi- cating the authority of the law. That Christ vindicated the authority of the law in his death is the best possible proof of the existence of the law, and certainly the law could not be abol- ished in the vindication of it. Then it was not the law, but the ministration of the law, that was changed. Under the new ministration, justification is not by the law but by faith in Jesus (Gal. 2 : 16). ^^Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Rom. 3 : 31). The law still remained as the standard by which sin is shown (Rom. 3 : 20 ; 7 : 7 ; 1 John 3:4; James 2 : 8-12; Ps. 19 : 7-11), also, to reprove the wicked, to approve the righteous, to restrain and constrain, and to be a rule of conduct to all. The law is estab- lished by being written in the hearts of God's people, whereby they are brought into harmony with the law and love its precepts. * ^ True Christians do not feel the law as a burden, but the best need it as a guide. ' ' — Waffle. *^We are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7 : 6). ^* Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (verse 12) : We cannot conclude that Chris- THE DECALOGUE 363 tians are delivered from that wliicli is lioly, just, and good, but that they are delivered from the bond- age and curse of the law, whereby they were held, thus enabling them to ^^ serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Again, the law is established by its full vindica- tion in the death of Jesus Christ ; for nothing could more completely establish the law than the fact that God's own Son was slain to vindicate its authority. The new ministration of the law rests on the fact that because of the perfect vindication of the author- ity of the law by the death of Jesus Christ, God can now be just and yet the justifier of him that believ- eth in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3 : 26). The Resurrec- tion testified that the death of Jesus Christ fully vindicated the authority of the law. Again, the law is established, as Paul said, by faith in Jesus Christ ; for faith in Jesus Christ is a recognition of His death as the vindication of the law, and thus a recognition of the law thus vindi- cated. The death of Jesus Christ is, in its nature, a stand- ing vindication of the law : hence its redeeming pow- er can never be exhausted, nor even diminished. ^^The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin" (1 John 1:7); ^^He will save to the uttermost all that come unto him" (Heb. 7 : 25) : these are a guarantee, both of its all sufficiency, and its ever sufficiency. The permanency of the vindication is also a guarantee of the permanence of the law there- by vindicated. What law was it that Jesus Christ vindicated by 364 SABBATH THEOLOGY His death? Certainly the then recognized law of God, which was broken by the Jews, and was the Ten Commandments in particular, whatever else might have been included, and that law certainly could not have been abolished in its vindication. Some seem to think it is necessary to abolish everything that related to the Jews, and therefore reject the Ten Commandments because they were given to the Jews. Just as well reject Christ be- cause he was a Jew and reject the teaching of the apostles because they were Jews. ^^ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah'' (Jer. 33 : 31), — then the new covenant, as well as the old, was made with the Jews. Even the Gospel itself was commanded to be preached first to the Jews (Acts 3 : 26; 13 : 46; Rom. 1 : 16). Paul, in speaking of the Jews, said, '^Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adop- tion, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- ing of the law, and the service of God, and the prom- ises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as con- cerning the flesh Christ came" (Rom. 9 : 4,5). ^^What advantage then hath the Jew! Much every way : chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3 : 1,2). Oral means spoken: and the oracles of God were the Ten Commandments spoken by God. If we re- ject the Ten Commandments because they were given to the Jews, then, to be consistent, we should reject the new covenant because it was made with the Jews, reject Christ because he was a Jew, and THE DECAIjOGUE 365 reject the teachings of the apostles because they were Jews. Some object to the terms ^^ moral law'* and ^^cere- monial law/' because the terms are not used in the Bible. But all must admit that some of the precepts of the law were moral in their nature and some cere- monial, and therefore the law naturally divided it- self into moral precepts and ceremonial precepts; and hence it is perfectly legitimate to speak of the moral part of the law as the moral law, and of the ceremonial part as the ceremonial law. The Decalogue was the only part of the law that was spoken by the voice of God and written by the finger of God; which fact necessarily gave it the prominent place in the law. AVhile there are moral precepts in the law outside of the Decalogue, yet the Decalogue is practically a summary of the moral law, and is, in this sense, referred to as the moral law. Since no distinguishing terms are used in the Bible to distinguish between the moral and the cere- monial parts of the law, it necessarily follows that the word ^^law" refers sometimes to the moral part of the law, and sometimes to the ceremonial part, and sometimes to the law as a whole; and we can judge only from the connection in which it is used. We would be obliged to use the word *^law'' in the same way to-day if we did not use the terms *^ moral'' and ** ceremonial," or some other distinguishing terms. The ceremonial part of the Jewish law consisted of types pointing to Christ, and were necessarily 366 SABBATH THEOLOGY abolished by having their typical meaning fulfilled, and done away, in Christ. There is no dispute on this point. The whole dispute is in regard to the Decalogue. Christ said, ' ' Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled'' (Matt. 5 : 17,18). All will agree that the ceremonial part of the law was fulfilled and done away in Christ. In the next verse Christ says, *^ Whosoever there- fore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Christ evidently meant these words to apply to all future time, not merely from the time they were spoken to His death. But the ceremonial law was abolished at His death, so these words can only apply now to the moral part of the law, which was therefore not done away ; for the words, ^Hhese commandments,'' can only refer to the law about which He was talking ; and the law about which He was talking was the Mosaic law, as shown by its being coupled with the prophets in the expression, ^Hhe law and the prophets." Isa. 42 : 21 foretold that Christ would *^ magnify the law, and make it honorable:" magnifying and honoring are quite the reverse of abolishing. In answering the rich young ruler (Luke 18 : 20), Jesus said, ^^Thou knowest the commandments," then he numerated five of the precepts of the Deca- THE DECiiLOGUE 367 logue, thus recognizing the Decalogue as the stand- ard of right living. Paul also (Rom. 13 : 9) numer- ated five of the precepts of the Decalogue as the rule of conduct. These ^ve precepts in each case are sufficient fully to identify the Decalogue as the code of laws referred to. Because all the precepts of the Decalogue were not here mentioned does not argue that those not men- tioned were abolished ; for, in that case, the first, sec- ond and third, as well as the Sabbath precept, would be abolished, and *^what proves too much proves nothing. ' * When asked which was the great commandment in the law, Jesus said, ^^Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great com- mandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." —Matt. 22 : 37-40. Here again the word ^4aw'' is coupled with ^Hhe prophets,'' thus identifying it with the Mosaic law; and in the very heart of the Mosaic law is the Deca- logue. The Decalogue therefore hangs on the two great commandments of love to God and love to man ; and there is certainly no argument in this fact that it is abolished. What peculiarly distinguishes the Decalogue is the fact that every precept in it is the natural, neces- sary and inevitable outgrowth of the two great com- mandments of love to God and love to man; and hence it would be impossible to abolish the Deca- 368 SABBATH THEOLOGY logue without abolishing the two great command- ments of which it is the necessary outgrowth. Those who teach that the Decalogue is abolished have much to say about God's higher law and God's eternal law of righteousness, but they fail to make it very clear wherein it excludes the Decalogue or in what sense it abolishes the Decalogue, for they recognize all of the precepts of the Decalogue ex- cept the Sabbath precept, as still binding. By God's higher law, they mean the two great commandments of love to God and love to man. These are but the tvv^o divisions of the one great law of love, which has its origin in the nature of God, for ^^God is love" (1 John 4:8); ^'therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13 : 10). Love, then, is the foundation principle of God's law. Love to God and love to man are the two great divisions, and the ten precepts of the Decalogue are the subdivisions : the first four belonging to the first, and the last six belonging to the second great divi- sion. Love corresponds to the root of the tree. Love to God and love to man are the two main branches : the first main branch having four sub-branches (the first four precepts), and the second main branch having six sub-branches (the last six precepts.) All other moral precepts are lesser sub-branches grow- ing out from these direct sub-branches. Abolishing the Decalogue and immediately restor- ing all but the Sabbath precept, may be fittingly likened to cutting off all the branches of the moral- law tree, and immediately grafting all but the Sab- bath branch back on again. But why not graft the Sabbath precept back on again, as well as the rest, THE DECALOGUE 369 for there is certainly sufficient reason for it? In claiming to be *^Lord of the Sabbath, '^ Christ plainly recognized the Sabbath precept. His at- tempting to reform the Sabbath by condemning the prevalent abuses of it, was certainly not with a view to abolishing it. When He said, *'The Sabbath was made for man, ' ' He certainly had no thought of abolishing the precept that prescribed that which was made for man. ^^The law is holy, just, and good'' (Rom. 7 : 12). What is true of the law as a whole must be true of all its parts; hence the Sab- bath law is holy, just, and good. And certainly Jesus did not abolish that which was holy, just, and good. Now, since there is good and sufficient reason for grafting the Sabbath precept back on again, we will assume that all the precepts of the Decalogue have been cut off and all grafted back on again. What has been gained by the transaction? Has the Deca- logue been abolished in any real or practical sense? Such a transaction would be contrary to God's nature, in whom there '4s no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas. 1 : 17) ; and of whom it was said, that '^ whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it" (Eccl. 3 : 14), ''All his command- ments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever." (Ps. Ill : 7,8.) Again, I will not "alter the thing that has gone out of my lips" (Ps. 89 : 34). It will be manifest to every one, that if all the pre- cepts were to be immediately grafted back on again, there would be no reason for cutting any of them off ; and hence the only possible reason that can be given 370 SABBATH THEOLOGY for cutting tliem off is to get rid of tlie Sabbath precept. To abolish the Sabbath precept, it is manifestly necessary to abolish the whole Decalogue; for all stand on equal authority, in that they were all spoken by the voice of God and written by the finger of God. Hence the necessity of cutting off all, to get rid of the Sabbath precept, and grafting the rest back on again. It is claimed that each of the precepts of the Deca- logue, except the Sabbath precept, is practically re- stated in the New Testament in the form of definite precepts, and that there is no definite precept in the New Testament corresponding to the Sabbath pre- cept. Eestating the precepts is only proof that they were never abolished in any real sense ; and the failure to restate a precept is certainly no proof that it was abolished. But in any case, Christ's attitude toward the Sabbath, as already shown, is the equiva- lent of a restatement of the Sabbath precept. God said ( Jer. 31,33) that He would write His law on the hearts of His people, and the whole history of the Christian Church shows that the Sabbath pre- cept was not omitted. The fact, also, that there is no definite code of laws given anywhere in the New Testament, argues that the code of laws already existing was not abolished. Again it is claimed that the Sabbath precept was a ceremonial, not a moral, precept, and hence that tlie Sabbath of the law was only a Jewish ceremonial ordinance. It seems evident that those who hold this view see in the Sabbath precept only the fixed day element THE DECALOGUE 371 of the Sabbath. We have already shown, as we be- lieve, in a former chapter, that the fixed day element of the Sabbath was never any part of the SabbatK precept. The fact that it is, in an economic sense, essential to the highest value of the Sabbath, does not argue that it was an essential part of the Sab- bath precept; for God is fully able, through his providence, to take care of the economic element of the Sabbath outside of any precept. And that He did so is practically proven in the fact that the fixing of the day of the Sabbath in every instance was attended by a special day-fixing dispensation of providence; for example, the manna in and of it- self, necessarily fixed the day of the Jewish Sabbath, and the Resurrection, in and of itself, necessarily fixed the day of the Christian Sabbath. Now, if these dispensations of providence necessarily, in and of themselves, fixed .the day of the Sabbath, then it was manifestly not necessary to fix the day by a definite precept ; and we know that God does noth- ing that is unnecessary. Now, if the Sabbath precept does not fix the day of the Sabbath, then it deals only with the every seventh day element of the Sabbath, which is essen- tially a moral element. The setting aside of a definite part of our time to the worship of God is a definite acknowledgment of God's authority, and a declaration of allegiance. It is also an acknowledgment of our debt to God as the giver of time and with it all that we possess. Also, the Sabbath as a creation memorial is an ac- knowledgment of our faith in God as the Creator of the universe. 372 SABBATH THEOLOGY These acknowledgments are purely moral duties because they are God's rightful due; and hence the precept that requires them is purely a moral pre- cept. Of courlse, God only had the right to ^x the proportion of time to be devoted to these duties; and a definite proportion of time was manifestly necessary to make the Sabbath precept a definite precept. All history testifies that the Sabbath is essential to man's highest physical, mental, intellec- tual, social, spiritual, and moral development, — all of which are essential to his highest usefulness to the end for which he was created. Furthermore, it naturally and inevitably results, that just in proportion as people neglect the Sab- bath, they forget God, and just in proportion as they forget God, they ignore His law. In this sense, the Sabbath precept is the mainspring of all ; for which reason, doubtless, it was put in the very heart of the Decalogue. All of these facts testify that the Sabbath precept is a purely moral precept. One thing is self-evident, that a moral precept deals only with a moral issue. Now, since the fixed day element of the Sabbath is, in its nature, an econ- omic, not a moral issue, it is evidently not based on a moral precept ; and if the Sabbath precept is wholly a moral precept, it does not ^x the day of the Sab- bath. All of the Decalogue abolishing theories necessar- ily involve the assumption that the Jewish Sabbath was the Sabbath of the law ; from which it would fol- low that if the Jewish Sabbath was abolished, the Sabbath law was also abolished, and if the Sabbath THE DECALOGUE 373 law was abolished, the whole Decalogue was abol- ished. But if the assumption is false, it proves nothing. Again, the Decalogue abolishing theories neces- sarily involve the assumption that the Decalogue consisted in the exact wording of the law, and that any change in the exact wording of it, necessarily abolished it ; for it is only on this principle that any of the precepts can be abolished and the sense of them immediately restored. But if the assumption is false, it proves nothing. And that the assump- tion is false is proved in the fact that the two copies of the Decalogue, given in Exodus 20 and Deuter- omy 5, are worded quite differently. Now, if the Decalogue does not consist in the exact wording of the law, but in the moral principles in- volved, then the fact, as claimed, that all but one of the precepts of the Decalogue are practically re- stored in the New Testament, proves that at least nine of the precepts of the Decalogue have never been abolished. But if any are not abolished, none are abolished ; for they all stand on equal authority. This is certainly decisive proof that the Decalogue is not abolished, and that the Sabbath still rests on the direct command of God in the Sabbath precept. The doctrine that the Decalogue was abolished and all but the Sabbath precept restored, is advanced in the supposed interest of the Christian Sabbath ; but it deprives the Christian Sabbath of its authority; for if it does not rest on the law of God, it has no authority. Those who wish to ignore the Sabbath, find full vindication in this doctrine. Those who 374 SABBATH THEOLOGY would do away with the Sabbath altogether, find their strongest argument in this doctrine. And those who oppose Sabbath legislation, find in this doctrine their most effective weapon. Thus those who teach this doctrine unintentionally ally them- selves with the enemies of the Christain Sabbath. It is also because of the practical admission of this doctrine, that Adventists score their strongest point ; for the doctrine practically admits that the Sabbath law fixes the seventh day of the week as the Sab- bath. And this admission by those who claim to be the champions of the Christian Sabbath, strengthens the Adventists more than all else combined; for then the whole issue turns on the question of the abolition of the Decalogue — and on this question Ad- ventists are fully able to hold their own. But in reality, the whole issue turns on the ques- tion, Does the Sabbath law fix the day of the Sab- bath? And we believe that we have, in previous chapters, fully sustained the position that it does not. Certain it is that the interest of the Chrisian Sabbath cannot be permanently advanced by any false doctrine. CHAPTER XX. SABBATH LEGISLATION". Whatever vitally concerns the welfare of a nation is a legitimate subject of national legislation. This proposition is too self-evident to be disputed; and, therefore, if it can be shown that the Sabbath vitally concerns the welfare of a nation, then the nation that fails to make proper Sabbath legislation is, to that extent, negligent in regard to its own national wel- fare. Vitality, morality and intelligence are essential to the highest type of citizenship. These elements are fostered by a proper observance of the Sabbath ; but Sabbath desecration tends in the opposite direction. The proper observance of the Sabbath makes God- fearing citizens, and these, as a rule, are the most law-abiding citizens ; and these are the strength of a nation. Adam Smith, who is one of the highest authorities on political economy, says, ^^The Sabbath as a politi- cal institution is of inestimable value, independently 376 SABBATH THEOLOGY of its claim to divine antliority." — Blackstone, the great law commentator {Commentaries, Bk. IV, cli. 4) says, ^'The keeping one day in seven holy, as a means of relaxation and refreshment, as well as for public worship, is of admirable service to the State, considered merely as a civil institution. It human- izes, by the help of conversation and society, the manners of the lower classes, which would otherwise degenerate into a sordid ferocity and savage selfish- ness of spirit. It enables the industrious workman to pursue his occupation in the ensuing week with health and cheerfulness ; it imprints upon the minds of the people that sense of their duty to God so nec- essary to make them good citizens, but which yet may be worn out and defaced by an unremitting continu- ance of labor without any stated times of recalling them to the worship of their maker. ' ' — Lord Macau- ley, in a speech in Parliament said, ^^Man ! man ! this is the great creator of wealth. The difference be- tween the soil of Campania and Spitzbergen is insig- nificant compared with the difference presented by two countries, the one inhabited by men full of moral and physical vigor, the other by beings plunged in intellectual decrepitude. Hence it is that we are not impoverished but on the contrary enriched by this seventh day, which we have for so many years de- voted to rest. This day is not lost. While the ma- chinery is stopped, while the car rests on the road, while the treasury is silent, while the smoke ceases to rise from the chimney of the factory, the nation enriches itself none the less than during the working days of the week. Man, the machine of all machines, the one by the side of which all the inventions of the SABBATH LEGISLATION 377 Wattses and the Arkwrights are as nothing, is recu- perating and gaining strength so well that on Mon- day he returns to his work with his mind clearer, with more courage for his work and with renewed vigor. I will never believe that that which renders a people stronger, wiser, and better can ever turn to its impoverishment — Rev. George T. Washburn {''The Sabbath for Man/' p. 221) says, ^^There is not a non-Sabbath-keeping nation that is not abjectly poor.'' — Joseph Cook (Boston Monday Lec- tures: ''Biology," p. 162) says, ''I am no fanatic, I hope, as to Sunday; but I look abroad over the map of popular freedom in the world, and it does not seem to me accidental that Switzerland, Scotland, England and the United States, the countries which best observe, Sunday, constitute almost the entire map of safe popular government. ' ' — The celebrated Count Montalembert (a French Roman Catholic) says, ' ' Impartial men are convinced that the political education by which the lower classes of the English nation surpass other nations — that the extraordin- ary wealth of England and its supreme maritime power — are clear proofs of the blessing of God be- stowed upon this nation for its distinguished Sab- bath observance. Those who behold the enormous commerce of England, in the harbors, the railways, the manufactories, etc., cannot see without astonish- ment the quiet of the Sabbath day.'' — Dr. SchafE {Princeto7i Review^ vol. XXXV., p. 570) says, '^Take away the Sabbath and you destroy the most humane and' most democratic institution which in every re- spvo<3t was made for man but more particularly for the man of labor and toil, of poverty and sorrow. 378 SABBATH THEOLOGY Take away the Sabbath and you destroy a mighty conservative force, and dry up a fountain from which the family, the church, and the state receive constant nourishment and support. Take away the Sabbath, and you shake the moral foundations of our national power and prosperity, our churches will be forsaken, our Sunday-schools emptied, our domestic devotions will languish, the fountains of public and private virtue will dry up ; a flood of profanity, licen- tiousness and vice will inundate the land ; labor will lose its reward, liberty be deprived of its pillar, self- government will prove a failure, and our republican institutions end in anarchy and confusion, to give way, in due time, to the most oppressive and degrad- ing military despotism known in the annals of his- tory. Yea, the end of the Sabbath would be for America the beginning of the unlimited reign of the infernal idol-trinity of Mammon, Bacchus and Venus, and overwhelm us at last in temporal and eternal ruin." It is unnecessary to add further testimony on this point, for the whole trend of evidence is in one direc- tion, namely, that the Sabbath question vitally con- cerns the welfare of a nation. This is increasingly true in proportion as the people have a voice in the government, and thus stamp their individual char- acters upon the government; and hence true in the highest degree in a republican form of government, as the United States, in which the character of the government depends directly on the vitality, mor- ality, and intelligence of the people; and, since the proper observance of the Sabbath fosters these ele- ments of national greatness, perhaps more than any SABBATH LEGISLATION" 379 other one influence, it vitally concerns tlie welfare of the nation. Christianity is the recognized foundation of Chris- tian government: the true principles of Christian morality are all on the side of right government. The most civilized, prosperous, and powerful na- tions of the earth are the Protestant Christian na- tions. This fact can only be due to the blessing of God. For, ^'Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.'' (Ps. 33 : 12). — ^^Righteousness exalteth a na- tion.'' (Prov. 14 :34). The Christian Sabbath is a distinctive mark of all Christian nations. Judge McLean of the Supreme Court of the United States, said, ^^ Where there is no Christian Sabbath there is no Christian morality; and without this, free government cannot long be sustained. Voltaire, the avowed enemy of the Chris- tian religion, said, ^^ There is no hope of destroying the Christian religion as long as the Christian Sab- bath is acknowledged and kept by men as a sacred day." ^ Therefore, the Christian Sabbath is vital to the I Christian religion, and the Christian religion is vital to Christian government. Hence the Sabbath ques- tion ranks as a vital issue just as the nation ranks as a Christian nation ; and not until a nation forfeits its right to be called a Christian nation will the Sabbath as a Christian institution cease to come within the proper range of its legislative authority. One of the primary ends of legislation is the pro- tection of personal rights; and one of the personal -rights that belong peculiarly to the laboring class is the weekly Sabbath of rest. This class forms the 380 SABBATH THEOLOGY greater part of any nation, and npon it tlie wealth and prosperity of a nation mainly depends. Their rights are certainly entitled to protection. Christ said, ^^The Sabbath was made for man;" hence it is one of man's inherited rights, and, as such, is as much entitled to the protection of the law as any other of his inherited rights. First. The Sabbath was made for man's physical welfare. It has been abundantly proved, by actual tests, that both man and beast can accomplish more work, in the long run, by resting every seventh day, than by working every day and at the same time keep in better physical condition. It might be supposed that additional daily rest amounting to one day in seven would be equivalent to an every seventh day of rest. This would doubt- less be true if it were merely a question of the rela- tive proportion of labor and rest; but the alternate action and reaction of a regularly repeated strain produces a vibrating condition which gradually in- creases in strain with each repetition and soon reaches the point of overstrain. For this reason, an army in crossing a bridge is ordered to break step, as the constantly increasing strain of the vibrations produced by the regularly timed tread of the army would soon injure and in time destroy the bridge. Life (the body) is the bridge between birth and death, and daily toil may be likened to the regularly timed tread of the army. A certain number of treads of the army would not produce overstrain ; so there is a safe limit. Six days of toil in succession seems to be the safe limit fixed by nature in applying the prin- SABBATH LEGISLATION 381 ciple to the bridge of life; the seventh day of rest breaks up the vibrating strain and restores the nor- mal condition of life. Increasing the amount of daily rest would correspond in effect to opening the ranks of the army so that fewer men would be on the bridge at one time, and thus diminish the force of each separate tread of the army. Some men have, by birthright, greater natural strength and vitality than others, and are able there- fore, to endure with safety longer periods of labor and require shorter periods of rest. Hence the nor- mal relative proportion between daily labor and rest differs in different men; but nature bases its laws upon normal conditions ; and therefore the law of one day rest in seven is based on the condition that the relative proportion between daily labor and rest is normal in each individual case. Attempts have been made to change nature's pro- portion of one day in seven, but all such attempts have ended in failure ; for if the proportion be dimin- ished, the output of labor falls short of the normal capacity of the human machine, and if the proportion be increased, the human machine is injured and its normal capacity diminished. Nature's Sabbath law must necessarily be the same as the Sabbath law of God's word; for Nature's laws are God's laws, and God would not make two conflicting laws. We see then that God's Sabbath law is not arbitrary, but is based on a need in man's nature and therefore madQ for man's good. i Rest is necessary to give nature an opportunity to renew the labor consumed tissues of the body. In the case of animals in their natural state, we observe 382 SABBATH THEOLOGY no indication that nature requires a weekly rest, but neither are they subject to the monotonous unvary- ing routine strain of daily toil ; from which it is evi- dent, that, from the animal standpoint merely, the necessity of a weekly day of rest is due solely to the regularly timed treadlike nature of daily toil. And thus it is that the weekly Sabbath of rest is peculiar- ly the birthright of the laboring man and of those domestic animals that labor in his service. *'A clamor is raised that certain kinds of service are required all the time. The least that can be said in reply is — the fact that some kinds of work are regarded as necessary twenty-four hours a day has not been held a plausible reason for urging that the same persons should be employed twenty-four hours a day. The same principle must be applied to the week.'' (From an editorial in The Christian En- deavor World of April 3rd, 1913.) It may also be observed in passing that the laws of nature never rest. But if this argued that a weekly day of rest was contrary to nature, it would also argue the same in regard to daily rest ; for the laws of nature require neither daily nor weekly rest, but are perpetual and unchanging in their nature and not subject to strain or destruction. \ The practically unanimous testimony of eminent physicians, who have given their testimony on the subject, is, that, other things being equal, those who rest one day in seven will be healthier, live longer, and accomplish more work than those who work every day, whether with brain or hands. For a few of these testimonies we refer to Waffle {The Lord^s Day, pp. 59-62) and Gilfillan {The Sahbath, pp. 173-183.) SABBATH LEGISLATION" 383 The fact that a weekly day of rest is essential to the preservation of the health of the laboring class, is too well established to be successfully disputed. Now, what so vitally concerns the physical welfare of the laboring class, vitally concerns the nation; and what vitally concerns the nation is a legitimate subject of national legislation. Second. The Sabbath was made for man's intel- lectual welfare. The mind, as well as the body, is subject to strain and fatigue; and just as physical overwork tends to physical breakdown, so mental overwork tends to mental breakdown or insanity. The brain, or seat of the intellect, is, in fact, a part of the body, and brain rest is a physical necessity. But we wish here to consider the question purely from the intellectual standpoint. We have shown that man, merely as a human machine, needs the weekly day of rest to keep the machine in good work- ing order. But man is more than a mere machine : the intellect and the soul of man is the image of God that distinguishes man as superior to other animals ; and the more this image of God is cultivated and developed, the higher man is lifted above the plane of the lower animals. Unceasing toil inevitably tends to intellectual degradation. Men must have time for intellectual improvement or they necessarily become stupid, ignorant and brutish, and little better than beasts of burden. The social, moral and religious progress, not only of the individual, but of the race, depends on intellectual development. It might be argued that if the evenings (after the day's labor) were properly devoted to mental im- 384 SABBATH THEOLOGY provement, tlie intellectual needs of tlie laboring class would thus be supplied. But the mind can ac- complish little with a tired body, and few have suffi- cient energy and interest left after the day's work is done; and this would be still more true if they were compelled to work continuously day after day. The weekly day of rest, therefore, is practically the. only time for the intellectual development of the^ laboring class. Those who labor with their brains, as office em- ployees, etc., also farmers, merchants, mechanics, tradesmen, and all others who labor with their brains as w^ell as with their hands, may properly be included with the laboring class. But those who thus labor with their brains have their intellect developed only along the one line in which they are empolyed, and need the weekly day of rest for general intellec- tual development. Those who are engaged almost wholly in intellec- tual pursuits, as doctors, lawyers, preachers, teach- ers, etc., need a weekly day of rest more for physical than for intellectual reasons. But we must remem- ber that the great mass of the human race always have and always will belong to the laboring class, and especially to the manual laboring class, who most need the weekly day of rest. And where these are intrusted with the ballot, their intellectual devel- opment is of the most vital concern to the welfare of the nation. We have shown that the weekly day of rest is vi- tally important to this end, and hence what so vitally concerns the welfare of the nation cannot fail to be a legitimate subject of national legislation. SABBATH LEGISLATION 385 Third. The Sabbath was made for man's social welfare. The whole social structure is made up of individuals combined into families, families into communities, and communities into nations. What- ever strengthens the social ties that bind a nation together, strengthens the nation. That the proper observance of the Sabbath is one of the most potent influences to this end, we think, can hardly be ques- tioned. The weekly Sabbath, in its rest from labor and business cares, furnishes the only favorable op- portunity for the laboring man to enjoy the society of his family, and thus strengthens the family social tie, which, as we have seen, is the foundation of the whole social structure. It is a significant fact, that divorces increase as the moral restraints of the Sabbath decrease. Dr. Lowe, an eminent physician of Berlin, in a speech in the German Parliament on a bill to prevent em- ployers from compelling their workmen to work on Sunday, said, ^^I have had occasion in my career as a physician to visit more than nine thousand work- men who worked on Sunday in their shops or at their homes, and I have it on proof that Sunday labor has the most disastrous e:ffect. In their homes slovenli- ness and discord reign : the life of the wineshop has supplanted the family life. ' ' (Quoted from Waffle — • The Lord's Day, pp. 99.) This shows, by contrast, the influence of the proper observance of the Sab- bath on family life. Cleanliness and neatness tend to health, refine- ment, and self-respect, while dirt and untidiness tend in the opposite direction. The Sabbath, in its respite from toil and in its opportunity for family and social 386 SABBATH THEOLOGY intercourse, is a strong incentive to the laboring man to wash and put on clean clothes ; and, added to this, the habit of assembling together to worship, clean and neatly dressed, has a humanizing, refining, and elevating tendency, the value of which, in its effect, both on the individual and on society, cannot be over- estimated. Again, the broad mark of distinction between the rich and the poor is largely obliterated on the Lord's day; and if they assemble together to worship in the true spirit of the day, class distinction is laid aside: they come to know each other better, — the rich become more humble and the poor more self- respecting, — and the bond of human sympathy is strengthened ; and, in so far as the Sabbath is thus observed, it tends to lessen the friction between capi- tal and labor. Hence the proper observance of the Sabbath strengthens all the social ties that bind society, and, in turn, the nation, together ; and thus it vitally con- cerns the welfare of the nation, and is therefore a legitimate subject for national legislation. Fourth. The Sabbath was made for man's moral and religious welfare. Upon the moral character of man, more than upon anything else, depends the wel- fare of society, and certainly what concerns the wel- fare of society cannot fail to concern the welfare of the state or nation. Does the Sabbath, then, exert a moral or an immoral influence upon the character of man! It is admitted that the answer to this question 'depends on the manner of the Sabbath observance; SABBATH LEGISLATION 387 for, while the proper observance of the Sabbath, in its very nature, can only exert a moral influence, so the improper observance of the Sabbath must neces- sarily, in the very reverse nature of the observance exert the reverse influence. But we are considering here only the proper ob- servance of the Sabbath. Webster quoted the fol- lowing, in his speech on the Girard Will case : * ^ You might as well put out the sun and think to enlighten the world with tapers, destroy the attraction of gravitation and think to wield the universe by human powers, as to extinguish the moral illumination of the Sabbath and break this glorious mainspring of the moral government of God. ' ' The Sabbath is essentially a religious institution since it has its origin in the moral law of God. It is impossible therefore to consider the moral char- acter of the Sabbath aside from its religious char- acter ; for the moral influence of the Sabbath depends on its religious observance. Man's religious nature underlies his moral nature. True moral perceptions are due to a religious sense of duty to God and to our fellow-man. There is a sort of superficial morality based on expediency and self-interest; but the morality that produces a sense of guilt or innocence lies deeper in man's rel- igious nature. The religious instinct is one of the strongest instincts of man's nature. If directed in the right direction, it lifts man to a high plane of moral char- acter ; but, in combination with ignorance and super- stition, it may indeed prove, as history attests, a very dangerous element, both to society and to the 388 SABBATH THEOLOGY state. In the very capacity for good lies the capacity for evil, depending wholly on the direction in which the capacity is directed. The safety therefore of society and State lies in directing the capacity in the right direction. The one right direction for the religious instinct is the direction pointed out in the word of God by Him who created the religious instinct. The more light that is thrown on the word of God, and the better it is understood, the more is ignorance and superstition dispelled. And the better man understands his true relation to God and to his fellow-man, the better is he qualified for citizenship. How is all this to be attained without the Sabbath, and the instructions of the pulpit! — for only by keeping the Sabbath are men enabled to meet for worship and religious in- struction. The word of God is the highest moral standard, and all its principles are on the side of good govern- ment; and to inculcate these principles is the pri- mary end and purpose of the Sabbath institution. A high standard of moral character in those who are intrusted with the ballot is certainly a matter of vital importance to free government ; and the Sabbath is the most potent influence to this end. Hence the Sabbath vitally concerns the welfare of the nation, and is therefore a legitimate subject of national legislation; for whatever vitally concerns, in any sense, the welfare of a nation comes within the legitimate range of its legislative authority. The proper extent and limits of Sabbath Legisla- tion is the next important phase of the subject. If SABBATH LEGISLATION" 389 the welfare of the nation, from the standpoint of political economy, is the justification for Sabbath legislation, then the same consideration of welfare necessarily determines the justifiable extent and lim- its of Sabbath legislation. It is only necessary therefore to determine what legislation is needed to make the institution of the Sabbath of the greatest economic value to the nation. It is evident that the economic value of the Sab- bath to the nation is just in proportion as it pro- motes the physical, intellectual, social, moral and religious welfare of the individuals who comprise the nation; for the character of a nation is only the sum total of the characters of the people who com- prise it. The promotion of the physical, intellectual, social, moral and religious welfare of man is also the Divine purpose of the Sabbath. We see, therefore, that the greatest economic value of the Sabbath to the nation lies in direct line with its Divine purpose. Hence the Divine blessing on the proper observance of the Sab- bath ; for it is only in its proper observance that the highest physical, intellectual, social, moral and reli- gious benefit is derived therefrom. That this is true is proof of the Divine origin of the Sabbath. Therefore, Sabbath laws that tend to promote the proper observance of the Sabbath, in so far as they do not conflict with the true principles of civil and religious liberty, are justifiable on the ground that the proper observance of the Sabbath conduces to the welfare of the nation. The proper observance of the Sabbath may be defined as that which is in accordance with God's 390 SABBATH THEOLOGY purpose in instituting it. And His cliief purpose in instituting it was manifestly to keep man from for- getting his maker and his own immortal welfare. This makes the Sabbath essentially a religious insti- tution. To ignore the religious element of the Sab- bath is, at the same time, to ignore man^s religious nature and repudiate God 's claim to worship. Those who would abolish the Sabbath altogether are invariably those who would also gladly abolish God and religion. Do away with the religious ele- ment of the Sabbath and its moral influence is de- stroyed ; and its physical, intellectual and social use, being untempered by moral restraint, naturally tend to excitement, dissipation and carousal, which is the reverse of true physical rest, intellectual develop- ment, and social improvement. By reason of Sunday carousal, many workmen are unfitted for work Monday morning. Sunday excur- sions, with their attendant crowds, excitement and dissipation, resulting in late hours and weariness, have practically no justification on the ground of public welfare. Excitement and dissipation is neither rest nor physical relaxation. ^^Of one hun- dred and fifty replies from employers, nearly all testify that church goers are better fitted for work on Monday morning than Sunday excursionists, — and most of them were very emphatic as to the di- sastrous physical effects of Sunday excursions.*' [The Sahhath for Man, pp. 209-214). It will be seen then, that the religious use of the Sabbath is the very key to its full value, even from the standpoint of political economy ; and hence Sab- bath laws that have in view the national welfare, SABBATH LEGISLATION 391 cannot ignore the religious element of the Sabbath. Indeed, the religious observance of the Sabbath must necessarily be the chief end of such laws, if they have in view the highest welfare of the nation. The true principles of civil and religious liberty do not conflict with proper Sabbath legislation. It is not the aim of proper Sabbath legislation to com- pel any one to attend public worship or accept Christianity or conform to any prescribed form of religion. If such were the aim, then they wo aid con- flict with the principles of Christianity as well as w^ith the principles of civil and religious liberty ; for Christianity recognizes the free moral agency of man, and that men cannot be made Christians by force. Sabbath laws may (without interfering with civil or religious liberty) aim to make the Sabbath recog- nized as a sacred public institution, and to prohibit conduct as would tend to desecrate it, and also to prohibit counter attractions that would tend to de- tract from its religious observance. So long as such laws do not coerce the conscience or compel religious worship, they do no violence to religious liberty. And as regards civil liberty, it must be remembered that civil liberty does not mean that a person has a right to do as he pleases regardless of the rights of others. This would be anarchy. Civil liberty may be defined as the liberty which the civil law grants ; and, where the civil law is the expression of the will of the majority, the highest possible degree of personal liberty is granted con- sistent with the rights of society as a whole. 392 SABBATH THEOLOGY Laws against theft, and other crimes, necessarily interfere with the personal liberty of those who are disposed to commit such crimes. A man may think that he has the right to do as he pleases on his own premises, but if he keeps a public nuisance, the law interferes with his personal liberty. He may think that he can treat as he pleases an animal that he has bought with his own money, but if he treats it cruelly, the law interferes with his personal liberty. He may think he has a right to sell what he pleases to those who wish to buy, but if he sells obscene literature, or anything else that is detrimental to the welfare of society, the law interferes with his personal liberty. He may think he has a right to have as many wives as he can get and support, but here again, the law interferes with his personal liberty. There is just as much reason to set up the personal liberty howl over these laws as over the laws against the dese- cration of the Sabbath. All such laws are based on the undisputed principle, that a government has the right to make laws prohibiting that which it believes to be detrimental to the general public welfare. A government has no right to make laws that coerce the conscience. Do the laws against the dese- cration of the Sabbath coerce the conscience? Do men desecrate the Sabbath for conscientious rea- sons? Do they violate the dictates of their con- science if they do not desecrate the Sabbath? Then the question is, Shall those who have no conscien- tious scruples regarding the Sabbath be allowed to trample on the rights of those who have? and, further than this. Shall a godless minority trample on the will of the majority who believe that the dese- SABBATH LEGISLATION 393 cration of the Sabbath is detrimental to the best interests of society? A person is justified in resist- ing human laws which he believes conflicts with God's laws, on the ground that God's laws are higher than man's laws. The case of the United States, perhaps, furnishes the most perfect test conditions of the problem of Sabbath legislation, because of the fact that here the principles of civil and religious liberty are applied to their utmost limit. The First Article of Amendment to the Constitu- tion says, ^^ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the only clause in the Constitution that in any way relates to laws con- cerning religion. Laws against the desecration of the Sabbath, evi- dently do not interfere with the free exercise of reli- gion. The whole question then turns on the expres- sion, ^^Eespecting an establishment of religion.'' From a literal standpoint the thing respecting or concerning which a law is made is the direct object of that law. An '' establishment of religion," even in a general sense, is neither the direct nor the indi- rect object of Sabbath laws ; but their sole object is the general welfare of society. ^^To promote the general welfare" is one of the objects of the Consti- tution as stated in the '^Preamble." A Sabbath law is in its religious phase an acknowl- edgement of God's authority, separately and inde- pendently of any religious sect, and hence is not of the nature of a law that has for its definite aim the 394: SABBATH THEOLOGY establishment of a particular form of religious wor- ship. The United States has always ranked as one of the foremost of the Christian Nations. Its *^ Declara- tion of Independence'' acknowledges the authority; of God in four different places. ' ' In God We Trust ' ' is its motto as expressed on its coin. The Bible is its standard of faith, as recognized in all its judicial courts. And Sabbath laws are only in direct accord with its already avowed character as a God-fearing Christian nation. The Act of Congress, during President Roosevelt's administration, legalizing the motto, ^^In God We Trust," on the coin, was, just as Sabbath laws are, a legitimate avowal of the nation's God-fearing Christian character. Neither law, how- ever, conflicts with the self-evident meaning of the Constitution ; for, in either case, the character is not established by the law, but the law is established by the character. The ^'general welfare" of society is the principle on which all right laws are based. Therefore, just so far as Sabbath laws promote the ^* general welfare" of society, they are right laws, and hence may bo justified on this principle alone, regardless of any religious consideration; and as thus justified, they are not laws *' respecting an establishment of reli- gion." It is argued that the demand for Sabbath legis- lation comes mainly from church members, and is therefore in the interest of religion. Because a Sabbath law may be in the interest of religion does not prove that it is not also in the inter- est of the state ; and, if enacted solely in the interest SABBATH LEGISLATION" 395 of the state, it is not enacted in the interest of reli- gion, and therefore not a law *^ respecting an estab- lishment of religion,'' for that is not the object re- specting which it is enacted. The law makes no distinction between church mem- bers and non church members. To refuse a petition for Sabbath legislation, merely on the ground that it came mainly from church members, would be to dis- criminate against them as citizens. It is just as impossible to ignore the fact that man is a religious being as to ignore the fact that he is a physical being ; and because the law provides for the ^^ general welfare'' of his religious nature, as well as of his physical nature, it does not necessarily fol- low that that law has for its object the establishment of any particular phase of religion, or that it has any direct object beyond the ^general welfare" of man as the basis of society and state. Since man is the basis of society and state, his moral development vitally concerns the welfare of the nation ; and since the moral influence of the Sab- bath depends almost wholly on its religious observ- ance, it necessarily follows that the welfare of the nation would be promoted by enacting laws prohibit- ing counteracting influences to the religious observ- ance of the Sabbath, — such as excursions, theatres, base ball, etc., — on that day. Such laws would tend to encourage the religious observance of the Sabbath without coercion of conscience or compulsory atten- dance on public worship. The only real difficulty involved in Sabbath legis- lation is occasioned by the dispute in regard to the day of the Sabbath. 396 SABBATH THEOLOGY In all Christian countries the Sunday, or Resur- rection-day, Sabbath is so universally recognized as to make the legal establishment of any other day simply out of the question. Yet there are in most of these countries a small minority, consisting of Jews, Seventh-day Baptists, and Seventh-day Ad- ventists, who make the seventh day of the week Sab- bath an essential point of doctrine. And the ques- tion arises. Is it possible to make adequate Sunday Sabbath laws without violating the religious liberty of these sects? Sunday laws do not compel labor on other days and therefore do not prevent these sects from keep- ing Saturday as their Sabbath, nor in any way from worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences, — and this is all that is strictly involved in the principle of religious liberty. Hence they can- not truthfully argue that Sunday laws violate the principle of religious liberty so long as such laws do not compel worship on Sunday. Here the question arises. Should the adherents of these sects be required not to w^ork on Sunday? This is a question of civil, rather than of religious liberty ; and civil liberty may be defined as that degree of personal liberty which is consistent with the *^ gen- eral welfare^' of society as a whole, and is therefore justly regulated by the civil law. Personal liberty is license when it becomes injurious to the ** general welfare'' of society; and it is the majority, not the minority, that has the right to judge what is or is not for the *^ general welfare'' of society. Therefore, in so far as Sunday transaction of busi- ness by the Saturday Sabbath observers is adjudged SABBATH LEGISLATION 397 by the majority of citizens to be detrimental to the ** general welfare ^^ of society, it may be legally pro- hibited without violating any principle of civil or religious liberty. Adventists and S. D. Baptists teach that the Sun- day Sabbath is the *^mark of the beasf (Revelation 13), and therefore make it a point to dishonor the day as much as possible. Many of them believe that it is their religious duty to work on Sunday, as otherwise they would be branded with the *^mark of the beast. ' ' But they certainly could do enough work on Sunday to satisfy their consciences without flaunt- ingly disregarding the rights of others who do not believe as they do. It is evident that their direct objection to Sunday legislation is the fact that they believe that the Sunday Sabbath is the ^^mark of the beast, ' ' and that Saturday is the only true Sabbath. They need, however, to prove a long line of sheer assumptions (as we have shown in preceding chap- ters) in order to clear the way f .r their Sunday *'mark of the beast" doctrine. Legislation in regard to the Sabbath as an institu- tion, is justified on the ground of the *^ general wel- fare," both of the individual and of society, inde- pendently of any religious consideration beyond the general recognition of man's religious nature; which recognition is justified in the fact. But it is also essential to the value of the Sabbath, as an institution, that all keep the same day so far as possible ; and hence the day of the Sabbath is nec- essarily involved in Sabbath legislation. And it is manifestly inevitable that the legal day of the Sab- bath will be fixed by the general religious character 398 SABBATH THEOLOGY of the nation as a wliole^ — if Jewish, it will be Satur- day ; if Moliammedan, it will be Friday ; if Christian, it will be Sunday. There is no denying the fact that Sunday is the generally recognized day of the Sabbath in all Chris- tian countries. The right to legislate in regard to the Sabbath, as an institution, necessarily carries with it also the right to ^x the day, — for the fixed day ele- ment is an economic necessity, as all will admit, — and the indisputable principle, that whatever vitally con- cerns the welfare of the state comes within the legiti- mate range of its legislative authority, covers the entire case. It is claimed that the enforcement of Sundav laws leads to religious persecution in the case of Adventists and others who keep Saturday as the Sabbath. Just as well claim that the enforcement of the law against polygamy leads to religious perse- cution in the case of the Mormons. Those who keep the Saturday Sabbath do so vol- untarily for conscience sake, and hence all loss there- from is voluntary sacrifice for conscience sake, and thus the religious phase of the persecution is self- inflicted. Adventists say, ''The State has no right to inflict upon any citizen a fine of one-seventh of his time as a penalty for living up to his religious convic- tions.'' This is a truth, but — misapplied. The one- seventh of time that is sacrificed to their religious convictions is Saturday, not Sunday; and hence the fine is self-inflicted for conscience sake. They have no legal claim, therefore, to ])e reimbursed on Sun- day for their own voluntary self-inflicted fine. SABBATH LEGISLATION 399 Again tliey say, ^^It is not within the province of the State to compel the citizens either to rest or labor, except as a punishment for crime. '^ This is only a half-truth. Christ said, ^'The Sabbath was made for man,'' therefore it is man's inherent right; and it is within the province of the state to protect him in that right from unscrupulous employers who w^ould rob him of it. Again they say, ^'In matters of faith the majority has no power over the minority. The conscience of a single individual is as sacred as that of a whole community. ' ' This is another truth misapplied, — in the fact that Sunday laws do not coerce the con- science of a single individual in compelling his reli- gious observance of the day or interfering with his religious observance of any other day. There is a marked distinction between a law prohibiting the public desecration of the Sabbath, and a law com- pelling the religious observance of it. The power of the majority over the minority is not in matters of faith, but in matters of political economy. That the day of the Sabbath is a matter of political econ- omy is seen in the fact that for the institution of the Sabbath to be of any practical value to the state, the day must be practically uniform ; and as long as the day is under dispute, even as a matter of faith, the question can only be justly decided by the majority rule, on the ground of its economic bearing on the '^general welfare" of society and State. Since in matters of faith the majority has no pow- er over the minority, therefore, the question of the day of the Sabbath, as a matter of faith, stands equally balanced; and since it is thus equally bal- 400 SABBATH THEOLOGY anced, this pliase of the question can have no weight either way on the question as a matter of political economy. So the whole question of the day of the Sabbath, if decided at all, must be decided from the standpoint of political economy ; and all questions of political economy come under the majority rule. The question of the day of the Sabbath, as a matter of political economy, is necessarily involved in the other question of Sabbath legislation ; and this leads back to the foundation principle, that whatever vi- tally concerns the welfare of the state comes within the legitimate range of its legislative authority. This principle is of the nature of an axiom, or self- evident truth, which cannot be disputed; and thus the whole question rests on this indisputable founda- tion, as already shown. Again, it is claimed that the enforcement of Sun- day laws is the first step toward union of Church and State. In attempting" to avoid any evil, there is a natural tendency to go to the opposite extreme; so, in at- tempting to avoid the evil of union of Church and State, there is a strong tendency to go to an equally dangerous opposite extreme and ignore man's reli- gious nature altogether in the enactment of laws; whereas, if man has a religious nature, as well as a physical nature, there is no ' reason why the law should not recognize one fact as well as the other, so far as either concerns the welfare of the state. There is certainly a true line running through this question ; and to err on one side of the line is as di- sastrous to the welfare of society as to err on the other. SABBATH LEGISLATION 401 From an Adventist leaflet entitled, ^^The Church and the State/' we quote, *^The Church and the State are two institutions ordained of God.'' *^The Church is God 's life-saving agency in the world ; and the State is His law and order society. ' ' Now if the State is an institution ordained of God, there is certainly no good reason why it should not formally recognize the authority of Him who or- dained it. If the State is God's law and order society, then the proposed amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States, to preface the ^^ Pre- amble ' ' with the words ^ ^ In the name of God, ' ' would be only a mere recognition of the fact which Adven- tists themselves acknowledge. But Adventists say that these five words, if pre- faced to the Constitution, contain the germ of all the evils of a union of Chruch and State. Thus they either contradict their own statement., — that *Hhe State is God's law and order society," — or else they practically assert that an acknowledgment of the truth contains the germ of all the evils of a union of Church and State. If the Church and the State are both ordained of God, why should not the fact be acknowledged by one as well as by the other? Separation of Church and State consists in con- fining each to its own proper, separate and distinct sphere. The recognition and acknowledgment of God's authority by the State does not interfere with its recognizing the separate and distinct sphere as- signed to it by God. Hence a rightful acknowledg- ment of God by the State has no bearing on the ques- tion of ^ ^ Separation of Church and State. ' ' All reli- gions are a recognition of man 's religious nature and 402 SABBATH THEOLOGT the authority of a superior being which may be called God, — though there can be but one living and true God. Therefore a recognition of God's au- thority and of man's religious nature underlies all questions of religious liberty. The question of '* Separation of Church and State" necessarily recognizes both Church and State. There can be no question of religious liberty with religion abolished, nor a question of '^Separa- tion of Church and State" with the Church abol- ished. When the question of religious liberty is pushed beyond its proper limits, it ceases to be a question of religious liberty, and becomes a question of religion or no religion ; and when the question of separation of Church and State is pushed beyond its proper limits, it ceases to be a question of separation of Church and State, and becomes a question of Church or no Church. We have a fair example of the legitimate result of no religion and no Church in the ^'Eeign of Terror" in France. Yet the advocates of ''No reli- gion; no Church," pose as the champions of "Eeli- gious Liberty" and "Separation of Church and State" while in reality they are the most dangerous enemies of both. Satan poses as an "angel of light." In his fight against true religion and the Church of God he is very careful not to raise the infidel banner, ' ' No reli- gion; no Church," but instead, raises the banner of "Religious Liberty" and "Separation of Church and State." It is very important, therefore, to draw the true line running through the question of " Separation S.iBBATH LEGISLATION 403 of Churcli and State/' and to recognize the fact that there is a line where the question of religious liberty ceases to be a question of religious liberty, and the question of separation of Church and State ceases to be a question of separation of Church and State ; and that, in crossing the line, these questions change into the questions, Religion or no Religion? Church or no Church? A danger signal needs to be raised at this point, for so many good and honest people, in their great fear of union of Church and State, fail to recognize the equal danger in the opposite extreme, and imag- ine that the slightest recognition of God or religion by the State contains the germ (as Adventists say) of all the evils of union of Church and State. The questions. Religion or no Religion? Church or no Church? God or no God? must be met and decided before there can be any question of religious liberty or separation of Church and State. For the question of ^^ Religious Liberty'' is a recogni- tion of religion, and the question of *^ Separation of Church and State" is a recognition of both Church and State. There can be no recognized separation without a recognition of the things separated; for things that have no recognized existence can have no recognized separation. There can therefore be no recognition of the principle of separation of Church and State without the recognition of the Church by the State, and of the State by the Church ; each duly recognizing the true sphere of the other. A recognition of the Church by the State is a recog- nition of religion, and a recognition of religion is a recognition of God; and the only God that can be 404: SABBATH THEOLOGY recognized by an enlightened civilized nation is the one only living and true God, to recognize whom, as the Creator of the universe, is to recognize His su- preme authority, the acknowledgment of which, by every civilized state that recognizes the fact, is God 's rightful due. It is an indusputable fact, that the highest degree of religious liberty exists in the Protestant Christian countries. And also that the reverse is true where Infidelity and Atheism rule, — as during the *^ Reign of Terror'' in France, — and in some Catholic coun- tries where the Bible is shut to all but the priests, and in heathen countries where the Bible is unknown. These facts prove that the greatest safeguard to religious liberty is the free and open Bible. No harm can possibly come to the cause of religious liberty from that which is its greatest safeguard. The teachings of the Bible, not as interpreted by fallible man, but as interpreted by Christ, can never be detrimental to religious liberty. The principles of love, sacrifice, and unselfishness exemplified by Christ; and the principles of man's free moral agency and liberty of conscience recognized by Christ; and the principles of moral persuasion em- ployed by Christ, — are the very foundation prin- ciples of religious liberty, and have their origin only in the Spirit of Christ. The spirit of persecution is contrary to the Spirit of Christ. Adventists point to the Papacy as warning of the evils of a union of Church and State. But we must remember that it was not the result of a free open Bible, but of the repression of the Bible. If Papacy is a warning on one hand, the ^' Reign of Terror" in SABBATH LEGISLATION 405 France should be a warning' on the other. The evil is not to be escaped by fleeing from Papacy into the arms of Infidelity and Atheism. Infidelity and Atheism are the avowed enemies of all religions, especially of the Christian religion, and hence of the principles of religious liberty, which Christianity alone stands for. Before they pose as the champions of religious liberty, let them blot out, if they can, the testimony of the *^Eeign of Terror'' in France. History testifies that whatever of religious liberty has been gained in any country is due wholly to Pro- testant Christianity, which stands for the free open Bible. The more enlightened the masses of the people in regard to the teachings of the Bible, the more secure is the cause of religious liberty; and the chief means to this end is the Sabbath, with its pulpit instruction. The more the true spirit of Protestant Christianity pervades the legislative halls, the less there is to fear for the cause of religious liberty. The only real causes for fear are the influences of Catholicism and of Infidelity; and perhaps the greater danger is in the latter, in the very reaction from the former. The statement in the Treaty with Tripoli in 1797, that ^ ^ The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, ' ' is not true. It was penned by the spirit of Infidelity. If we could conceive of every principle and influence of Christianity withdrawn from the foundation under- neath the United States government, the falsity of the statement would be apparent. The United States has always been recognized as 406 SABBATH THEOLOGY ^ one of the foremost of the Protestant Christian na- tions. The character of the nation is the real foun- dation of the government. This fact would be very quickly demonstrated if either the Catholic Church or Infidelity and Atheism gained complete control. Hence the only safety for the cause of religious lib- ery depends on Protestant Christianity being sus- tained. It is evident that Protestant Christianity cannot be sustained by religious persecution or coercion of conscience; for these methods are directly opposed to the essential principles of Protestant Christianity. And any such methods, though in the name of Pro- testant Christianity, would not aid, but hinder, the true advance of Protestant Christianity; and herein lies the security of the cause of religious liberty, so long as the true standard (the free open Bible) of Protestant Christianity, is sustained. Union of Infidelity and State (as in the ^^ Reign of Terror'' in France) would certainly be as great an evil as the union of Church and State, and therefore the principle of separation is just as applicable in one case as the other. Church. State. | Infidelity. State. Theism (God). \ Atheism (No God). Theism is involved in the question of ^ ^ Separation of Church and State" just as Atheism would be in- volved if the question were a ^'Separation of Infi- delity and State." But the question before us is the former, not the latter. Therefore the State, as it relates to the question before us (Separation of Church and State), stands on theistic, not atheistic, Theism (God) SABBATH LEGISLATION 407 ground, and the principle of separation must be applied between Theism and Atheism before it can be applied between Church and State. State — God^s law and order society. Church — God^s life-saving agency. The above definitions of Church and State (given by Adventists themselves) clearly define the proper sphere of each combined with the acknowledgment of God's authority in each case; and it is evident, the acknowledgment of God's authority in each case does not lessen the separate and distinct character of each. Preserving the separate and distinct character of each is all that is involved in the question of ^ ^ Sepa- ration of Church and State. ' ' Hence an acknowledg- ment of God's authority by the State is not goin^ be- yond the proper sphere of the State. God either is or is not ; and that He is the Creator of the universe either is or is not a fact. If it is a fact, then the acknowledgment of the fact is God's rightful due from the State as well as from the Church. On what consistent ground can Adventists or others hold that this acknowledgment is due from one and not from the other, if, as they claim, one is an institution of God as well as the other? To be con- sistent, they must withdraw the claim that the State is ^^ God's law and order society." If, as a whole, the true character of a nation is theistic, then the acknowledgment of the authority of God by the State is only in harmony with the true character of the nation; and a refusal to acknowl- edge the authority of God, after the issue has been drawn, is a definite surrender of the point to Infi- 408 SABBATH THEOLOGY delity and Atlieism, and a denial of the true* cliar act er of tlie nation. The question, ' ^ God or no God f ^ is a vital question which, in its very nature, cannot admit of a neutral decision, and hence there is no neutral ground on* which the State can stand; for when the issue is drawn, it must either acknowledge God's authority, or, in refusing, deny His authority. The general character of the State as a whole determines its as- sumed position on the question since there can be no neutral position. But when this assumed position is brought to an issue, it becomes a political question, which must necessarily be decided by the majority rule. Remember that this is not a question of ^^ Religious Liberty '* or of ^^ Separation of Church and State;'' for these questions necessarily involve the existence of God. The question, *^God or no God I", is the one fundamental question which draws the line between conscience on the one hand, and license on the other. With Theists, it is a question of conscience; with Atheists, a question of license. Atheists have no right to take refuge, as they do, behind the principles of religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and sepa- ration of Church and State when they deny the fact (the existence of God) upon which these principles are based. It is a natural tendency of human nature, in at- tempting to remedy an evil, to go to the opposite ex- treme; and Satan never fails to take advantage of this fact in his opposition to reform, as the history of past reforms testify. Hence we can be sure that SABBATH LEGISLATION 409 the present '^Religious Liberty" reform is no excep- tion. As soon as Satan recognizes liis inability to with- stand the reform by direct opposition, he immedi- ately disguises himself as a friend of the reform, in order to thwart God's purpose in the reform by car- rying it to the opposite extreme; and the opposite extreme in the present case is evidently atheism. Thus, by posing as the champion of religious lib- erty and pointing to the Papacy as a warning, he at- tempts to blind people into believing that the slight- est recognition of the authority of God by the State is the germ that will inevitably lead to religious op- pression : whereas the authority of God is the foun- dation of religious liberty, and the free open Bible is its safeguard; and the danger is not in the State recognizing the fact, but in its ignoring the fact. Mrs. E. G. White, the Adventist leader, says, ''The spirit of liberty went with the Bible. ' ' Again, ' ' True freedom lies within the proscriptions of the law of God.'' (The Great Controversy, pp. 277, 285.) Then how can these truths, recognized by the state, become the germ of religious oppression ? We must bear in mind that it was the suppression of the Bible, and never the free open Bible, that has resulted in religious oppression. An acknowledgment of God's authority necessarily involves a recognition of God's law as the basis of all law. Mr. J. N. Andrews (Adventist) says, ''God gave to man the institution of marriage" (The Sabbath and the Laiv, j). 145) ; also, "God gave to man the Sabbath" (p. 143), "Here is a divine institution" (p. 147). Therefore marriage and the Sabbath are f'JD SABBATH :.THEOLOGY both divine institutions ; and one is no more a divine .institution than the other. If Sabbath laws are reli- gious laws because the Sabbath was ordained of God and therefore a religious institution, then laws relating to marriage and divorce are also religious laws for the same reason. If all the Adventists' arguments against Sabbath laws, on the ground that they are religious laws, and the state has no right to pass religious laws, were applied to marriage instead of the Sabbath, they would be contradicted by Adventists them- selves; which proves that their arguments, though apparently plausible, are only sophistry. Mormons have just as much reason for opposing laws against polygamy, on the ground that they are religious laws, as Adventists have for opposing Sabbath laws on the ground that they are religious laws. Both marriage and Sabbath institutions vitally concern the physical, intellectual, social, and moral wel- fare of man; and since man is the basis of Society and State, what vitally concerns his welfare, vitally concerns the welfare of the State ; and this alone is sufficient ground for legislation in each case, without any religious consideration. Yet the religious consideration cannot well be ig- nored, even in the eyes of the law; for the moral value of both institutions is due to their religious or sacred nature as divine institutions; and the moral value is a very important element of value to the State, and the State cannot ignore the fact without ignoring its own interest. Hence to maintain the sacred character of these institutions, by prohibiting whatever tends to defeat the purpose for which they SABBATH LEGISLATION 411 were ordained, is the duty of the State, even from the standpoint of political economy. The fact that Adventists oppose Sabbath laws, and not marriage laws, makes it evident that religious liberty is not the real ground of their opposition to Sabbath laws, and that the real ground is the fact that such laws are Sunday Sabbath laws, and thus do not accord with their views in regard to the day of the Sabbath. If they were polygamists, like the Mormons, they would, no doubt, still pose as the champions of religious liberty, and oppose both mar- riage and Sabbath laws on the ground that such laws involved religious persecution. They do not oppose laws against polygamy simply because such laws are in accord with their views. Hence we have good reason to believe, in spite of their denial, that they would not oppose Sabbath laws if such laws were in accord with their views regarding the day of the Sabbath. Sunday laws do not compel Adventists or any one else to acknowledge Sunday as the Sabbath, but only to respect the rights of those who do. Neither do they prohibit Adventists from observing Saturday as their Sabbath, and therefore do not interfere with their worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences. Hence religious liberty is in no sense interfered with. Adventists cannot consistently raise the religious liberty cry so long as they advocate laws against polygamy, which involves the persecution of another sect. If they say that laws against polygamy are absolutely necessary to the moral welfare of society and state, v\^e answer, very true : and so also are Sab- 412 SABBATH THEOLOGY bath laws. If they should say that Mormonism is an unmistakable and abominable evil, which is not en- titled to religious toleration, they would only license the same judgment on themselves from those who regard them in the same light — though not so rankly offensive, yet for that reason all the more subtle and dangerous to the welfare of the country; for they are the most active of all the opponents of the Chris- tian Sabbath, and, doubtless, unsettle the faith of ^ve for every one that they proselyte to their doc- trine. The question of single or plural marriages can only be settled legally by the will of the majority, where the will of the majority is the recognized law; and, for the same reason, the question of Sunday or Saturday Sabbath can only be settled in the same way. Adventists acknowledge the right of the ma- jority to settle the marriage question, but refuse to acknowledge the right of the majority to settle the Sabbath question; evidently, because in the one case the decision is in harmony with their doctrine, while in the other it is not : but the majority have the same right in the one case as in the other. The persecution argument, that Sunday laws de- prive persons of the labor of one day in seven, is just as applicable in the case of those who object to keeping any Sabbath, as in the case of those who keep the Saturday Sabbath; for keeping the Satur- day Sabbath is voluntary on the part of those who keep it, and therefore has no bearing on the question, and hence the enforcement of Sunday laws is as just in one case as in the other, and is not a religious per- SABBATH LEGISLATION 413 secution of a sect because of their conscientious ob- servance of another day. To exempt those who keep the Saturday Sabbath from keeping the Sunday Sabbath is to discriminate between two classes purely on the basis of the volun- tary act of keeping the Saturday Sabbath. Those who would keep no Sabbath could legitimately pro- test on the ground that a voluntary act entitles no one to legal privileges. All the persecution that Adventists suffer, more than other objectors, is due to their own voluntary act in keeping the Saturday Sabbath, which, if they do for conscience sake, they should be willing to accept the necessary privation resulting therefrom without putting the blame where it does not belong, and without demanding damages at the expense of the ** general welfare'' of society. When they defiantly disregard Sunday laws to show their contempt for Sunday as the **mark of the beast,'' and of Sunday laws as the mandates of the beast, thus not only violating the laws of the country, but insulting the nation, and treating with contempt the religious convictions of others, they certainly are not entitled to any more consideration than other violators of the law. However, their hon- esty and sincerity, which cannot be questioned, calls for all the leniency possible. All enforcement of law (Sunday law no more than others) is a persecution tt) those against whom it operates; for example, the enforcement of laws against polygamy, sale of obscene literature, nuis- ances, cruelty to animals, theft, murder, etc., which, so far as the moral law is involved, might be classed 414 SABBATH THEOLOGY as religious persecution. Hence the persecution argument if carried to its ultimatum would abolish all law. Adventists claim to be the most law abiding people on earth, but any deference to Sunday laws is, to them, a recognition of the authority of the beast. Otherwise, by a little application of the law-abiding spirit, they could utilize Sunday to intellectual devel- opment, and in manj private ways, for it is not their private acts, but only their flaunting, defiant public desecration of the Sunday Sabbath, that antagon- izes the law. Thus the real privation involved in the Sunday Sabbath to Adventists could be reduced to a very small minimum if they were so disposed, but this would minimize their religious martyrdom; so, in order to pose as religious martyrs they must make the best showing possible from magnified Sunday persecution, for this is their sole capital. But self- sought martyrdom is not the genuine article. If persecution is a mark of God's saints, then the Mor- mons have much the best claim to the title. Apparently, Adventists are almost impatiently ex- pecting the IJnited States (as the Beast of Kevela- tion 13) to enact, according to prophecy, a law en- forcing the observance of Sunday (the **mark of the Beast''), and imprisoning and putting to death all who will not receive the **mark of the beast" by observing Sunday. All this must come to pass, according to their in- terpretation of prophecy, before the end of the world; and the end of the world must be in ^Hhis SABBATH LEGISLATION 415 generation'^ — the generation which saw the falling of the stars in 1833, the last sign given by Christ (Matt. 24 : 29). All the Protestant churches are to be united into a Protestant Catholic Church, and, by union of Church and State, all the persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church are to be paralleled and crowded into the few remaining years of * ^ this gen- eration '' of those who saw the stars fall nearly eighty years ago. This doctrine was, till recently, if not still, gen- erally taught, and to modify it now, in view of its practical impossibility, would be an acknowledgment of the unreliable character of all their interpreta- tions of prophecy. It is practically certain, therefore, that Adventists would hail with almost fanatical joy the enact- ment of a Sunday law by the United States as a vindication of their interpretation of prophecy ; and that they oppose Sunday legislation only because it devolves on them to pose as the defenders of the faith. The present movement toward union among the Protestant churches is therefore regarded by Adventists as the beginning of the end, to be quickly followed by union of Church and State, and religious persecution in the enforcement of Sunday laws. Duty is determined by precept, not prophecy. God can take care of prophecy without man's counsel to hasten or hinder. Duty cannot be evaded by evading the fulfilment of prophecy. If the principle of unity was clearly taught by Christ (John 17 : 11,20-23) and His apostles (1 Cor. 1 : 10; 1 Cor. 12 : 25; Phil. 1 : 27; Phil. 2 : 3; Eom. 15 ; 5,6), then the union of churches, so far as pos- 41^ SABBATH THEOLOGY sible, without sacrifice of principle, is in accordance with the teachings of Christ and of the apostles ; and no interpretation of prophecy can reverse the fact, nor would the fact be reversed even if it were a ful- filment of prophecy. In Isa. 52 : 8, it is prophecied, '^They shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.'' In so far as Church union tends to this end, it is, to that extent, a fulfilment of this prophecy, and can- not but be in the direction of God's purpose. If the union movement is of God, we can be sure that Satan will do all in his power to checkmate it. If he can do this most effectively by misapplying the principle of religious liberty and affecting a warning of religious intolerance, and by misinter- pretation of prophecy, he would surely do so ; for he is too experienced a strategist to fail to use the most effective means. We can be sure, also, that if he fails thus to check- mate the movement, he will, according to his usual tactics, disguise himself as a friend of the reform and do all he can to thwart God's purpose in it. And even if he succeeded in perverting it to the extent of religious intolerance, as Adventists predict, it would furnish no argument that the union movement was not of God, but only that Satan had thwarted God's purpose in it. But if Satan succeeded in wholly thwarting God's purpose in it, he would prove him- self mightier than God. Unless Sunday is the ''mark of the beast", in Eev. 13 : 16, the proper enforcement of Sunday laws can have nothing to do with the fulfilment of that pro- phecy. The assumption that Saturday is the truQ SABBATH LEGISLATION" 417 Sabbath and Sunday the ^^mark of the beast" is the vital point in the Advenist interpretation of proph- ecy; but if (as we claim to have shown in the preced- ing chapters) this assumption is false, then all the deductions that are derived from it are false also. Again, we have clearly shown that the enactment and enforcement of proper Sabbath laws, do not in- volve the union of Church and State, but that even the moral or religious phase of the question only in- volves a due recognition by the State of the auth- ority of God and of the sacred character of the Sab- bath. The authority of God, the sacredness of the Sab- bath, and the free moral agency of man, on which the principle of religious liberty is based, are facts that have a right relation to each other ; and, in this right relation, they do not conflict but harmonize. From which it follows that a Sabbath law which duly rec- ognizes each fact will be in harmony with all three; and it is necessary that the State duly recognize each fact in order to enact such a law. Hence a due recognition of the principle of religious liberty does not interfere with a due recognition of the authority of God and of the sacredness of the Sabbath. It is necessary to understand Satan's tactics in order to successfully checkmate him; and it is most important to keep in mind the ultimate end (Athe- ism) toward which all his moves on the chess-board are made. Adventists might well consider whether or not Adventism, in its co-operation with Satan's other agencies in opposing the enactment and en- forcement of proper Sabbath laws is not also one of Satan's chessmen. 418 SABBATH THEOLOGY Many persons deny the personal existence of Sa- tan; but this great world chess-game between good and evil certainly implies the personality of one con- testant as well as of the other. Shall Sunday be a holiday or a holy day? The European Continental Sunday represents the form- er; the Anglo-American Sunday represents the lat- ter; and the vital question before the patriotic, as well as the God-fearing people of England and America, is. Shall the former be allowed to supplant the latter! as it is fast doing. The European Continental Sunday has its legiti- mate origin, primarily, in the doctrine taught by Luther and his associates, that the Sabbath law of God was abolished at the cross, that the Sunday Sab- bath rests, not on the law of God (this doctrine is fully discussed in the preceding chapter), but on civil and religious expediency, that the only proper religi- ous incentive to its observance is in the remembrance of the Eesurrection, and therefore that the non-ob- servance of the Sabbath was not a violation of the law of God. This doctrine would naturally lead, as it has, to a total disregard for the sacredness of the Sabbath as an institution ordained and commanded by God. The Catholic Sunday has its origin in the doctrine that the Sunday Sabbath rests, not on the law of God, but on the authority of the Catholic Church, which requires attendance at the morning services of the Church, and sanctions the devotion of the re- mainder of the day to worldly amusements. In direct contrast to both of these doctrines, the SABBATH LEGISLATION 419 Anglo-American Sunday has its origin in the doc- trine that the Sunday Sabbath rests directly on the law of God as the reason for its every seventh day element, and on the Resurrection as the reason for its fixed day element, and that the non-observance of the Sabbath is a direct violation of the Sabbath law of God, which has never been repealed. This doc- trine maintains the sacredness of the Sabbath as an nstitution ordained and commanded by God. Com- paring the Continental, the Catholic, and the Anglo- American Sunday, it is easy to see the legitimate result of the underlying doctrines, and to judge accordingly of their truthfulness. The Continental Sunday had its origin, secon- darily, in the doctrine of religious liberty in its un- bridled sense: ignoring the true line between reli- gious liberty and religious license ; and ignoring the fact that Theism and true religious liberty cannot be separated ; that when religious liberty leaves the bounds of Theism it becomes irreligious liberty, or license, ending in Atheism; that religious liberty and God are on one side of the line, and license and no God on the other; and that just so sure as reli- gious liberty leads away from religious, or papal, intolerance, so irreligious license leads to irreligious, or atheistic intolerance. This unbridled interpretation of religious liberty was, however, the reaction from papal intolerance swinging to the opposite extreme: a natural tend- ency which Satan did not fail to take advantage of. The Continental Sunday thus furnishes a practi- cal demonstration that the chief opposing elements to true Sabbath reform are false doctrines regard- 420 SABBATH THEOLOGY ing the Sabbath and a false conception of religious liberty. The same influences which led to the Conti- nental Sunday will, if not checked, just as surely lead to the same result in England and America, where it has already a strong foothold. It is true that Sabbath reform has at times erred on the side of intolerance ; and these occasions have always resulted in injury to the cause in the inevi- table reaction tending to swing to the opposite ex- treme. ^'He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. ' '—2 Sam. 23 : 3. This then is the Bible Eule for civil authority. It is only when men do not rule in the fear of God, that religious liberty is in danger. ^^ Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.'' — Psa. 33 : 12. Acknowledgment of the authority of God is then the Bible Rule for national prosperity. **The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. ' ' — Psa. 9 : 17. Nations for- get God just in proportion as they desecrate the Sab- bath. Keeping the Sabbath holy is then the Bible Rule for national security. True religious liberty can only be secured in the correct application of these Bible rules, not in dis- carding them. Misapplication of a rule is no fault of the rule, and no reason for discarding it. True reform seeks to recognize and follow the line of truth; and, to this end, it is necessary to recog- nize and guard against the reactionary extreme. The vibrations of a string gradually decrease till the string comes to rest in the true line. So with the reactionary vibrations of reform. SABBATH LEGISLATION 421 The Bible lias proved itself the highest rule of action; hence the line laid down therein is the true line in which all true reform must come to rest. This is true of Sabbath reform as well as any other. It is evident, therefore, that Sabbath reform must come to rest in the true line extending from God's Sab- bath law, at the one end, and man's free moral agency, as the basis of religious liberty, at the other. Hence, Sabbath laws should recognize the Sabbath as a sacred institution by prohibiting whatever tends to desecrate it; and, at the same time, recognize man's free moral agency by giving him full liberty to worship according to the dictates of his own con- science or not to worship at all. **The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. "—Mark 2 : 27. This is Christ's interpretation of the Sabbath law. It follows, there- fore, that if, under certain conditions and circum- stances, the keeping of the Sabbath was detrimental to man's highest good, that fact would, during the necessity of the case, suspend the Sabbath law ; and again, if man 's welfare were better served by chang- ing the day of the Sabbath, that fact would be sufiS- cient for changing the day of the Sabbath. These suppositions are not wholly impossible, since man's highest welfare does not depend on con- ditions and circumstances that are necessarily fixed and unchangeable. Herein is the justification of necessary labor on the Sabbath, even to the extent of ordinary labor. It would seem practically impossible, under pres- ent economic conditions, wholly to suspend labor on any one day of the week ; and in so far as such labor 422 SABBATH THEOLOGY is necessary to the highest good of all, it is full^ justified in Christ's interpretation of the Sabbath law. But Christ's interpretation certainly does not justify in the slightest degree unnecessary labor. It is claimed that Sunday traffic is necessary; but some of the highest railway officials have admitted that the most of it is unnecessary. (See pamphlet entitled Sunday Railway Work.) *^That Sunday trains are not necessary to the prosperity of a railroad is proved by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western. Under the influence of the late William E. Dodge and President Sloan, it has always refused to run Sunday trains, but from the beginning of its history it has been one of the most prosperous roads in the country. When, in 1873, the Central Railroad of New Jersey decided to run Sunday trains, Mr. Dodge retired from its man- agement and sold out his stock, getting a high premi- um. In less than two years the road was bankrupt, its stock selling for ten cents on the dollar. We do not claim that bankruptcy was a penalty for Sab- bath breaking, but it shows that Sunday trains do not make a road prosperous.'' — The Lord's Day, Waffle, pp. 338, 339. Sunday excursions, Sunday mail service, Sunday newspapers, etc., involve Sun- day labor that cannot be said to be necessary. Since ^Hhe Sabbath was made for man" and is therefore his inherent right, those who labor on Sun- day are entitled to some other day of the week as their Sabbath ; and if their loss of the Sunday Sab- bath could thus be fully compensated, no direct loss would result. But this is not possible; for the loss of pulpit instruction, and social and religious inter- SABBATH LEGISLATIOlsT 423 course in public worship, and the Christian influence that belongs only to the Sunday Sabbath cannot be compensated. Sunday excursions, Sunday base ball, Sunday theatres, and other Sunday amusements are direct desecrations of the Sabbath in counteracting the chief purpose for which the Sabbath was instituted. It is evident that those who teach that the Sabbath law of God was abolished can bring no valid argu- ment against these things, but only furnish a valid excuse. It is only in maintaining the Sabbath as a sacred institution, ordained and commanded by God, that these things can be validly opposed. '^It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." — Matt. 12 : 13, R. V. APPENDIX THE LYING SPIRIT An Adventist preacher made the statement in the author's home that D. L. Moody kept the Saturday Sabbath before his death. The following letter from the son of D. L. Moody to the author's sister will therefore explain itself. East Northfield, Mass., , November 8, 1911. Miss Alice C. Logan, Loreburn, Sask., Can. Dear Miss Logan: I have had so many letters similar in character to yours of the 16th ult. from the Pacific Coast, that I am inclined to think that the story that my father observed the seventh day is attributable to the same source. Either these people who tell this story are careless in investigating the facts, or are purposely circulating an untruthful rumor in their proselyt- ing campaign. THE LYING SPIRIT 425 The statement that my father ever observed the seventh day as the Sabbath is absolutely untrue. At one time in his life, more especially in his earlier life, he used to take Saturday as a day of rest, which meant to him a day when he did not preach, but sought relaxation and recreation with his family. The later years of his life were more strenuous, and it frequently happened that he never let up in his work for many weeks at a time. The rumor is there- fore doubly untrue, and both in print, and by letter, 1 have denied it. In the first place, it is untrue that in his later years he observed Saturday at all, and whereas Saturday was a day of rest to him in the earlier years of his work, it was not a day of reli- gious observance, but a day of physical relaxation and rest. I should be very glad if you would show this letter to the man who is circulating this report, and tell him that it is absolutely untrue, and I hope he will do his part to stamp out a lie. I may add that my father, on the one occasion I remember his mentioning the Seventh Day Advent- ism to me, referred to it as a form of legalism with which he had no sympathy. It seemed to him that the Seventh Day Adventists were exercising their energy in seeking to make a schism, instead of try- ing to reach the lost. Yours sincerely, W. R. Moody. Satan is the Lying Spirit, and he must needs blind those whom he would use as instruments of deception in order to make them the most effective instruments of deception. 426 APPENDIX Adventists imagine they are God's special agents to warn people of the great danger of being deceived by the Lying Spirit. They should remember that every fanatic thinks the same. There is no doubt but that at least the great majority of Adventist teachers are perfectly honest and sincere ; but their honesty and sincerity is no guarantee that they are not Satan's blinded tools. They herald their doc- trines in a series of tracts entitled ^^ Words of Truth," but the title is no guarantee that they are words of truth. Adventists have perfect faith in their prophetess, Mrs. White, and hence to them her visions or * testi- monies," as they are called, are direct revelations from God and therefore settle beyond dispute all questions of Bible doctrine with which they deal. Adventists claim to test the inspiration of these * * testimonies ' ' by the Bible, which only means their interpretation of the Bible. So claimed the disciples of Swedenborg, of Ann Lee, of Mrs. Southcott, of Joseph Smith, etc., and proves no more in the one case than in the others. Neither does Mrs. White's exemplary life prove any more in her case than in certain of the others whose lives were just as exem- plary. **If possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24 : 24). This certainly implies that their lives would be exemplary. Satan cannot fail to rec- ognize the importance of exemplary lives in those whom he would use as instruments of deception. Hence he transforms himself into an angel of light, and by thus deceiving them, transforms them (in their own eyes) into ministers of righteousness (2 THE LYING SPIRIT 427 Cor. 11 : 14,15), tliat tlirougli tlie force of tlieir own honesty and sincerity they may most effectively de- ceive others. Christ warned of false prophets (Matt. 7 : 15; 24 :' 24. Also 1 John 4:1), and many false prophets have arisen whose followers in some cases have out- numbered those of Mrs. White. Were they less intel- ligent! were they less sincere and honest! had they less faith in their leaders! had they less confidence in the truth of their doctrines! Had their leaders less faith in their own inspiration and divine commis- sion! Adventists claim that Mrs. Wliite's visions are at- tested by supernatural manifestations, yet they ad- mit that supernatural manifestations do not always come from God. In all other cases they unhesitat- ingly attribute them to quite a different source. The false prophets *' shall show great signs and wonders" (Mat. 24 : 24) : therefore supernatural manifesta- tions do not prove divine inspiration. The Bible is the only sure test. What does not harmonize with the teaching of God's word cannot be inspired of God, for God cannot contradict himself. The Ad- yentists' Sabbath doctrine is of course fully con- firmed by Mrs. White 's visions ; but that it is wholly at variance with the Bible, we believe has been fully demonstrated in the preceding pages. All the first generation of Seventh-day Adventists were Millerites and they now teach that the Miller- ite movement was the first angel's message (Rev. 14 : 6,7). The movement was based on Miller's jjrophecies of the end of the world in 1843 and 1844 428 APPENDIX by the second advent of Christ. The failure of his prophecies necessarily proved him a false prophet; and this fact cannot be changed by any after inter- pretation of his prophecies that was not thought of at the time they were made. ^^When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing fol- low not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken'' (Deut. 18 : 22). Miller confessed his mistake and soon after died a sad and disappointed man. Some of the Millerites went back to the churches ; thousands became infidels, Spiritualists, etc., and the remainder broke up into a number of sects which bitterly denounced each other. One sect adopted the seventh day of the week Sabbath doctrine and be- came known as Seventh-day Adventists; but this doctrine was an after attachment which Miller him- self rejected. During the whole of the Millerite movement they kept the Sunday Sabbath, which they now claim is the *^mark of the beast" and which is the basis of their third angel 's message. That all the churches which opposed the Millerite movement are become Babylon is the basis of their second angePs message. The commission of delivering God's final messages to the world calls for the most undeniable proofs. The Adventist claim to this commission rests on the Millerite movement, which, if of God, proved God on their side and against the churches which opposed them, and thus as God 's chosen people they were the specially appointed interpreters of His inspired word and the special recipients of His mes- sages to the world. Even supposing, for the sake of THE LYING SPIRIT 429 argument, that the Millerite movement was of God, it would give no authority to the Saturday Sabbath doctrine, for the Saturday Sabbatli doctrine never had the sanction of the Millerite movement, and Sev- enth-day Adventists can furnish no proof that they are the authoritative representatives of the Miller- ite movement. The Millerite movement ended in discord, division, speculation, conflicting doctrines, warring factions, confusion, etc. ; a disgraceful spectacle to the world, resulting in the Bible discredited and Christ dishon- ored. * * By their fruits ye shall know them. ' ' ^ ^ God is not the author of confusion.'' Adventists claim that the Millerite movement must be of God because attested by unmistakable manifestations of the Holy Spirit. This is the argu- ment of every fanatical sect ; but it counts for noth- ing to Adventists in the case of others who do not agree with them, then it counts for nothing in their case. Religious excitement and fanatical enthusiasm are always attributed by those exercised thereby to the Holy Spirit. The moment we allow emotion to override reason and judgment we put ourselves in the power of the Lying Spirit, for God has endowed man with reason and judgment; therefore in His dealings with man He does not ignore man's reason and judgment. We do not discount emotion, but we must look for the reason back of it and base our faith, not on the emo- tion, but on the reason. The joy of salvation is due to a realization that God is, and that He cannot lie, and therefore that His promises cannot fail, and that we have met the 430 . APPENDIX conditions and accepted His promise of salvation throngh Jesus Christ. Tliis realization cannot fail to produce a sense of joy which will naturally be in exact proportion to the degree of the realization. A sense of joy is often due only to excitement, and accepted as proof of salvation, and many are thus deceived by the Lying Spirit. Therefore feelings, in and of themselves, prove nothing, and should have no place as argument. If we base our faith upon them, Satan, the Lying Spirit, will not fail to make use of the opportunity thus offered. The Adventists' 1913 Year Book (pp. 285) says, in regard to their origin in the Millerite movement, that they were ^* impressed with the fact that God had given too much evidence of his connection with the movement to allow them to abandon it,'' but, ^'if the time was wrong every thing was wrong. ' ' Hence to admit error in the time set was ^^to abandon the whole previous movement with all its accompanying manifestations of divine power." Therefore they concluded that the nature of ^'the sanctuary" and its cleansing had been misunderstood. They boast that they accept no proofs but Bible proofs and that all their doctrines are based on a * ^ thus saith the Lord, ' ' yet here we have a plain ad- mission, that their very origin as a religious sect was based solely on the manifestations of divine power which they believed attended the Millerite movement. They know full well that there is no posi- tive Bible proof locating beyond question the begin- ning of the 2300 day prophecy (Dan. 8 : 14), and hence the infallibility which they assume for the Millerite interpretation of that prophecy, must be THE LYING SPIRIT 431 based on the manifestations of divine power sup- jjosed to attend that interpretation. The Millerite movement was in its very nature peculiarly calculated to arouse fanatical enthusi- asm and excitement, which is always attributed to the Holy Spirit by those exercised thereby. There- fore the claim to the Holy Spirit 's manifestation can prove no more in their case than in the case of any other fanatical sect making the same claim. Yet all the churches became Babylon and rejected of God in rejecting the Millerite movement. Thus Adventists make God an unjust judge, in condemning where proofs were not conclusive, and not based on the Bible, but only on a claim that every fanatic makes. A claim that every fanatic makes, and which, if true, would prove many conflicting doctrines, is cer- tainly not in itself conclusive evidence, and God could base no just judgment upon it. '^ Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest. For the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer less : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." — 1 Cor. 3 : 11-15. Then because the foundation is sure is no guar- antee that the building is sure, neither is the perish- able building any guarantee that the foundation is not sure. Because a man is a Christian is no guar- 432 APPENDIX ■ I antee that his works will not be burned np, neither is the perishable nature of his works any guarantee that he is not a Christian and will not be saved yet so as by fire. Because the Seventh-day Adventist Church is built on the sure foundation in Jesus Christ is no guarantee that the doctrinal structure is not wood, hay and stubble, instead of gold, silver and precious stones. Satan cannot destroy the foundation, but he will do all in his power to have wood, hay and stubble built upon it, for people will judge the foundation by the building; and thus Christ is dishonored and Satan exults. And fanaticism is undoubtedly one of the most effective means which Satan uses to this end. The false prophets shall ^4ead astray if possible even the elect'' (Matt. 24 : 24 R. V.) : not, ^^If it were possible,'' as in the common version, implying that it was not possible, but, ^'If possible," imply- ing that it was possible. And it is all too evident that even the '^very elect" are often led astray. We do not doubt that Seventh-day Adventists include many of the ^'very elect:" the sure foundation in Jesus Christ will insure their salvation ; but as with all others their works must be subjected to the test- ing fire, and if wood, hay, and stubble, will be con- sumed. *^Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" is Christ's command. How far this command has been carried out dur- ing the past hundred years by the Protestant evan- gelical churches is shown in the following compari- son given in The Missionary Review of the World ; — THE LYING SPIRIT 433 1810 '^Nearly every country in Asia and Africa was closed to the Gospel. The church did not believe in foreign missions. There were practically no Protestant Christians in heathen lands. , Only one hundred foreign missionaries had been sent out. The Bible was translated into only sixty- five languages. Only a few thousands of dollars were given yearly for foreign missions. There were no medical missionaries. There were no mission hospitals or orphanages. There was no native Christian missionary. Missionary work was not recognized in American and British colleges. There were no unmarried women missionaries, and no organized work for women. There were no mission presses or agencies for pre- Xjaring and distributing Christian literature in non- Christian lands. 1910. Practically every nation in the world is open to missionaries. All evangelical churches are interested in missions. To speak against missions is counted a disgrace, and a sign of ignorance. More than two million Protestant Christians have been gathered in heathen lands — besides all who have died in the faith. There are nearly twenty-two thousand foreign missionaries in the world. 434 APPENDIX The Bible lias been translated into about ^ve liun- drecl languages and dialects. Total foreign missionary contributions amount to nearly $25,000,000 annually. Thousands of medical missionaries in heathen lands treat three million patients a year. There are 400 mission hospitals, and over 500 or- jjlianages and asylums in foreign lands, operated by missionaries. There are over six thousand unmarried women missionaries to heathen women and children. There are about ninety-three thousand native pas- tors, evangelists, etc., working among their own people. There are nearly 30,000 schools and colleges con- ducted by Protestant missionaries in foreign lands. There are over 160 publishing houses and mission presses, and 400 Christian periodicals are published on the mission fields. Thousands of college students are on the mission field, and thousands are preparing to go. And yet to-day one billion people are still ignorant of the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of the world." i We think we may safely estimate that nine-tenths of this advance has been since 1844, when, according to Adventists, these missionary churches became Babylon and rejected of God. j It is very evident that if God had rejected the churches, He would cease to work through them. Then we must conclude that God's sanction was not in this carrying out of Christ's command or else that Seventh-day Adventists (and also a few other THE LYING SPIRIT 435 sects) are at least somewhat premature in announc- ing the Churches to be Babylon. Adventists are constrained to admit, by reason of the very overwhelming force of evidence, that the Holy Spirit was in the work of Moody and others; but in all such admissions they contradict their own doctrine, that the churches are Babylon and rejected of God, for, if this were true, it is evident that God would cease to work through them. The fact stands that God is using the evangelical Protestant denominations to evangelize the world. The proof of the God given mission of the Protestant church among the heathen is that it is accomplishing this evangelization along the lines of spiritual and moral persuasion as practiced by Christ. There is no compulsion and no mere counting of numbers. These missions try to make sure of the spiritual change of heart. That they are sometimes mistaken is only to be expected. The Boxer uprising was proof to the world of the genuineness of the Chris- tianity of the majority of the Chinese Christians. The evangelical Protestant denominations can and do agree upon the essentials of Christian doctrine. Therefore they can and do work in a great comity of missions, thereby making it possible to evangelize the world without unnecessarily confusing the minds of the heathen. This is a very strong evidence of the God-given character of the mission of the Pro- testant Evangelical Church as represented by the various Protestant evangelical denominations to-day. The several small sects which oppose each other, and which denounce the great evangelical churches as Babylon, clearly retard the advance of Christ ^s 436 APPENDIX Kingdom both at home and abroad, but especially on the foreign field — a very strong evidence that their commission is not from God. Adventists have missions in many parts of the world; but these are essentially proselyting mis- sions, for their avowed message is to call the Chris- tian people out of Babylon (or the churches), and hence, wherever their missions exist along with, others, they antagonize the missions of othei! churches and thus confuse the people and retard ther advance of Christ's Kingdom. Because of their doctrine, that the churches are Babylon and rejected of God, and also because of their Sabbath doctrine, it is evidently impossible in the very nature of the case, for Adventists to join in the general comity of missions, but must stand out in opposition to all, and thus become a positive hindrance, instead of help in the evangelization of the world. As a rule they follow other missions. They jus- tify this, we suppose, on the ground that it is their special mission to counteract the false doctrines taught by the other churches. Their main strength, at home or on the mission field, is what they pro- selyte from other churches. They accomplish but little in reaching the unconverted, if we may judge from apparent results, and what little they accom- plish in this line is through the elements of truth which they hold in common with other churches. Compulsory Sabbath labor deprives the laboring •man of an opportunity of hearing the Gospel, and compulsory Sabbath labor cannot be prevented with- out Sabbath legislation. Hence in opposing Sabbath THE LYING SPIRIT 437 I legislation, Adventists help to deprive the laboring man of an opportunity of hearing the Gospel; and thus they retard the Gospel, both at home and abroad, while the Lying Spirit blinds them into supposing that they are the only true champions of the Gospel. They argue that their work is attested by mani- festations of God's blessing, and then shut their eyes to the hundred-fold more manifestations of God's blessing on the work of other churches and allow the Lying Spirit to persuade them that their work alone has God's sanction and blessing, since the other churches have become Babylon and re- jected of God, after the Millerite movement in 1844. It would seem to be but just to attribute this ap- parent blindness mainly to ignorance in regard to the work of other churches. Such blindness, if not due to ignorance, can only be due to an assumption of infallibility of doctrine. Yet they are the loudest in denouncing any assumption of infallibility in others. If they are preaching the second and third angel's messages, as they claim, then their doctrine must be true ; and this is the evident basis of their assumed infallibility. Their second angel's message teaches that the churches have become Babylon in rejecting the Mil- lerite message, and thus rests on the Millerite move- ment as the first angel's message; and so both must stand or fall together. If their second angel's mes- sage is false, it is certain that God would not commit to them the third angel's message. Hence their 438 APPENDIX third angePs message, involving tlie Sunday Sab- bath as the mark of the beast, must stand or fall with the others. If the Babylon of Revelation refers primarily to the papacy, as Adventists hold, then the theory that all Protestantism is the result of the second angePs message in the Lutheran Reformation has not yet m.et a worthy rival. Here is a worldwide religious movement worthy of prophetic recognition, and, until it is eclipsed by a greater religious movement answering to the same prophecy, it must still hold first claim to prophetic recognition; for it is unrea- sonable to think that prophetic recognition would pass by a greater and rest on a lesser reason for recognition. Adventists reject this theory because the second angel's message must be after the first, and they hold the Millerite movement to be the first angePs message; and that the first angePs message must be near the end of time, they think to be proven in its announcement that 'Hhe hour of his judgment is come.'' Again, they claim that Babylon as the mother of harlots must include the daughters, and that these are the Protestant churches which rejected the first angePs message in the Millerite movement, and that the message that ^^ Babylon is fallen'' must include the fall of all and could not be given until the fall of all. But the message would be true as soon as the fact of fallen Babylon existed, and would not cease to be true as long as the fact existed, and that the fact existed at the time of the Reformation can- not be denied. THE LYING SPIRIT 439 The *^ great city of confusion," or *^ Babylon of false doctrines, ' ' includes all false doctrines. Every fanatical sect claims to be the only exception, but the proof is not in the claiming. In regard to the first angel's message. Rev. 14 : 6 represents the first angel as *^ having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth. ' ' **To preach" is future in sense and locates the angel at the beginning of the message to be preached. What was the ^^everlasting gospel" but the Gospel of Jesus Christ! When did the preaching, of this Gospel begin but at the beginning of the Christian dispensation! In the angel we recognize a herald from heaven. In the * ^ everlasting gospel" in the hands of the angel we recognize a message from heaven, and this message is plainly stated to be **unto them that dwell on the earth. ' ' In the first place, a herald is essentially one who proclaims something new — not something that has already been proclaimed. In the second place, if the '^everlasting gospel" had been preached for cen- turies on the earth it could not fittingly be repre- sented as afterward borne from heaven to earth. It was borne from heaven to earth in a primary sense only once — at the beginning — and only at the begin- ning can the figure be most fittingly applied. In the third place, the phrase, ^^to preach," is future in sense, and the phrase, ' ' unto them that dwell on the earth, ' ' is inclusive in sense, including all that dwell on the earth. Hence the ^'everlasting gospel" had not yet been preached to any. Thus a literal analysis of the passage locates the angel at the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. 440 APPENDIX The angel also proclaimed, * ^ The hour of his judg- ment is come'^ (v. 7). There is nothing to prove that this refers directly to the final judgment. Christ said, ^^Now is the judgment of this world'' (John 12 : 31). Peter said, ^'The time is come when judgment must begin at the house of God'' (1 Pet. 4 : 17). Christ said, ^'The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12 : 48). Then the light of the Gospel will judge man in the final judgment, and is thus in itself the final judgment, since it carries the final judgment in itself; and in this sense the hour of God's judg- ment has come from the beginning of the Gospel light, and the Gospel light has been judging the world ever since, wherever it has been shining. This is further implied in the present tense of the mes- sage, *^The hour of his judgment is come," which, to be strictly literal, locates the hour of his judg- ment at the beginning, not at the ending of the mes- sage. Adventists teach that this judgment refers to the * investigative judgment," which, they affirm, began in 1844, thus making the tense of the message future at the time it was proclaimed. (^^Investigative judg- ment" is a term coined by Adventists to designate a doctrine which they themselves originated.) If the three angels' messages constitute in them- selves a distinct and independent line of prophecy, as Adventists themselves admit, it would most nat- urally embrace the entire Christian dispensation — not merely the latter end of it. In regard to the third angel's message, it must necessarily be after the second angel's message, and THE LYING SPIRIT 441 we would naturally expect as literal a beginning as in the other cases. The Adventists' Sabbath doc- trine is as old as the Jewish nation. Giving it a new setting as the third angel's message cannot make it a new message with a literal beginning after the second angePs message. The third angePs message will certainly not be given until it is due, but must evidently be given before the end of time. A falling body hastens as it nears the earth. Hence it would be according to a law of nature if the Gospel dispensation hastened as it nears the goal of its gravitation in the second advent of Christ, and therefore the final message may occupy but a brief space of time. ^^A thousand of our years is only a day to Him. But, when the day of the Lord comes, He will do in a day the work of a thousand years. ' ' (Dr. Hume). For the sake of brevity, we have, throughout this book, used the word ^^Adventisf in referring to Seventh-day Adventists. But all are * ^ adventists ' ' who believe in the soon appearing of our Lord in His second advent glory, and we have had no intention of throwing the slightest discredit on this doctrine. Eeligious zeal, enthusiasm, and fervor are but the expressions of intensity of faith, whether based on truth or error. It is not a question of the basis of faith, but of tae intensity of faith. No greater ex- ample of religious zeal and enthusiasm can be found than in the heathen women who threw their children to the crocodiles to appease their gods. Therefore, religious zeal, enthusiasm and fervor are, in them- 442 APPENDIX selves, no proof of the truth, for they can be based . on error as naturally as on the truth — being in either case but the expressions of the intensity of faith. In reading the bulletin of the last General Confer- ence of Seventh-day Adventists one is impressed with the religious zeal, enthusiasm and fervor mani- fested, but, as we have just seen, this is no neces- sary evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Still, this apparent evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence, we would not presume to say was all only apparent. There is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit honors the essential truths of salvation wher- ever, whenever, and by whomsoever preached, but that does not prove the Holy Spirit's indorsement of every doctrine preached in the same connection. There is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit honors (by an individual blessing) every whole-hearted consecration of the life to God in whatever cause it may be, but that is no proof of the Holy Spirit's in- dorsement of the cause. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would contradict itself in the indorsement of con- flicting causes, in each of which, equally whole- hearted consecration of the life to God is made. The same is also a rational explanation of any real manifestation of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Seventh-day Adventist movement through- out the world. The Holy Spirit can honor the truth involved without indorsing the error. Truth is truth and must be honored as truth even though mixed with error. The steady growth of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and the spiritual blessings claimed by tliose engaged in it, were continually cited through- I THE LYING SPIRIT ^443 out the conference as infallible proofs of the Holy Spirit's guidance. If these were, in themselves, in- fallible proofs, then they would infallibly prove the Holy Spirit's guidance in conflicting causes. If proofs at all, their greater weight is on the side of the greater measure, which is undoubtedly the side of the Sunday Sabbath phase of the Gospel's pro- gress. What counts on both sides of a question can evidently in itself, furnish no proof on either side. Among the responses to Mrs. White's message to the Conference are the following (see Conference Bulletin, p. 165) : ^^The Lord is talking to us yet." — ■ Elder J. N. Loughborough; ^^I thank the Lord that we have the Lord's voice among us still." — Elder S. N. Haskell. These voiced the sentiment of all, and unmistakably referred to the words of Mrs. White's message as the direct embodiment of the Lord's voice, and hence just as authoritative and infallible as the Bible. Among the quotations from Mrs. White's own writings, also read before the same Conference, are the following (Bulletin, p. 235) : ^^Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof many will declare it is the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God ; ' ' again, ^ ' I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision — the precious rays of light shining from the throne." f Could any more positive claim to infallibility be made? We indorse the Adventist's denunciation of the Catholics' claim to the pope's infallibility, but 444 ^ APPENDIX I we fail to see their consistency when in reality (if not in direct statement) they make the same claim in the case of their own leader. If the claim in one case is blasphemy, it must also be blasphemy in the other (unless true) ; for both rest on exactly the same as- sumption — God 's voice speaking through man. Any explanation that Adventists can make of their ex- pressions regarding Mrs. White can be and is used by Catholics in explanation of their expressions re- garding the pope. To doubt the inspiration of Mrs. White's ^^Testimonies'' is the first stage of apostasy from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is only one feature of resemblance between Ad- ventist and Catholic propagandas which could fairly be interpreted as suggesting an ^4mage" of the *^ beast." We quote again from the Bulletin (p. 195). In re- ferring directly to Mrs. White 's instructions relative to Loma Linda College, which had just been read, Elder W. A. Euble said, *'When God speaks. Sev- enth-day Adventists listen and say. Amen." Mrs. White was also frequently referred to during the Conference as God's special messenger, and as the spirit of prophecy. That the words of Mrs. White are regarded by Adventists as the direct voice of God speaking through her, is too evident to be mistaken. It is in fact a vital point of their doctrine. Hence Mrs. White's ''Testimonies" are to Adventists the end of all argument on all disputed points of Bible doc- trine with which they deal, Just as the edicts of the pope are to Catholics. Therefore they are a posi- THE LYING SPIRIT 445 , tive obstruction to the free course of the Bible as [truly as are the edicts of the pope. If Mrs. White's ^^Testimonies'' (or visions) are, as claimed, ^^The precious rays of light sliining from the throne. ' ' They are equal in authorit}^ to the Bible, and since tliej^ are thus accepted by Adventists, it is inevitable that Adventists must interpret the Bible in the light of tliem; and that this is a fact is all too evident to be successfully denied. Of course they must deny the fact, and even try to persuade them- selves that they are only interpreting the ^^Testi- monies" in the light of the Bible. But, if the ^^Tes- timonies" in any degree influence their interpre- tation of the Bible, then just to that extent the Bible is interpreted in the light of them: and it is neces- sarily true, in the very nature of the case, that their interpretation of the Bible is influenced in exact pro- portion to their faith in the "Testimonies." Thus it is inevitably true that they interpret the Bible in the light of Mrs. White's "Testimonies" just as truly as the Mormons interpret the Bible in the light of the "Book of Mormon." Adventists pose as the champions of the Bible. They boast that they hold the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith: yet they hold the "Testi- monies" to be directly inspired of God, which makes them equally infallible. They boast that they accept no proofs but Bible proofs: yet the "Testimonies" are to them the end of all argument. They boast that they "just let the Bible interpret itself:" yet persist in interpreting the Bible in the light of the "Testimonies." They boast that they accept the Bible from Genesis to Eevelation without question 446 APPENDIX or quibble : yet they question and quibble it into har- mony with the '^Testimonies." Thus their boasts are contradicted in their practice and therefore shown to be but the boasts of the Lying Spirit. Mrs. White ^s writings contain much valuable truth — so do many other books. But that fact does not prove in any case that they are infallible on all points of doctrine. For Mrs. White's '^ Testi- monies,'' to be accepted as infallible, the proofs of their divine inspiration must be infallible. Are the proofs infallible? They are simply Mrs. White's claim to divine inspiration, and certain apparently supernatural manifestations attending her visions, which, however, are not impossible of explanation without involving any supernatural element. (Ad- ventists have no difficulty in explaining supernatural manifestations, in the case of Spiritualism, as due to the Lying Spirit.) It is easily conceivable how that a person, per- fectly sincere and honest, with vivid imagination, a highly emotional and religious temperament, self- assertive disposition, fanatically inclined, and pos- sessed with some new religious thought, may imag- ine himself or herself to be inspired of God ; and how that if hysterically tempered, these conditions might incite hysteria, and would control the mind during the hysteric state, and result in supposed visions. Hence the supposed visions would not prove the char- acter of the religious thought that controlled them. Error could control the supposed visions just as naturally as truth, without, in either case, involv- ing any supernatural element. But in the last analy- sis, all truth is from the Spirit of truth, and all error from the Lying Spirit. THE LYING SPIRIT 447 The very nature of the Millerite movement, and also the formative stage of the Seventh-day Advent movement, in the belief that the former was the jjroc- lamation of the first angel 's message, and the expec- tant state in regard to the second and third angePs messages, and the readiness to seize upon any con- dition as a fulfillment of prophecy were all peculiar- ly calculated to act upon a subject peculiarly suscep- tible to their influence, and therefore justify the rea- sonableness of the explanation here given of Mrs. White's visions. And we can be sure that the Lying Spirit is always quick to recognize and to act upon favorable conditions. It is a very easy matter to doctor up a prophecy, after it has apparently failed, by giving it some vague mystical future interpretation which was not thought of at the time it was made, as in the cases of certain of Mrs. White's prophecies. But, for a prophecy to have any practical value, it must be in- terpreted in the sense in which it was meant at the time it was made and be subject to the test of Deut. 18 : 22. Otherwise the test would manifestly be in- operative. If honesty, sincerity, zeal, enthusiasm, fervor, joy, etc., w^ere proofs of truth they would prove many conflicting doctrines. It is manifest therefore that none of these things can, in themselves, count as proof of doctrine. Hence the Bible alone is the only basis of proof on all Bible doctrines. *^ Search the scriptures '* (John 5 : 39). — ^' Prove all things" (1 Tim. 5 : 31). To prove all things by the Scriptures, the Scriptures must have free course ; 448 APPENDIX but the decrees of the pope, the Book of Mormon, and Mrs. White's ^^Testimonies'' obstruct the free course of the Bible in exact proportion to the faith that people have in them. And in so far as they obstruct, they can only be in the interest of the Lying Spirit. To turn truth into a lie is the one aim of the Ly- ing Spirit. If Christians keep Sunday solely in commemora- tion of the Resurrection, it is to them solely a me- morial of the Resurrection; then to deny this self- evident fact and assert that it is in no possible sense a memorial of the Resurrection, but only a relic of pagan sun-worship, is but an attempt of the Lying Spirit to turn truth into a lie. If Sunday is kept by Protestants solely in recog- nition of the Resurrection, it does not involve recog- nition of any State, Church or Pope; then to deny this self-evident fact and assert that it cannot be kept without recognizing the authority of the Catho- lic church, and is thus the mark of the beast, is but an attempt of the Lying Spirit to turn truth into a lie. The word Easter is derived from Eastrae, the heathen goddess of Spring, the worship of whom was in recognition of the resurrection of apparently dead nature into new life by the coming of the spring. What they thus ignorantly worshiped (Act. 17 : 23) is declared to be Jesus Christ, who is *Hhe resurrec- tion and the life" (John 11 : 25). Then the resur- rection of spring is a fitting memorial of the Resur- rection of Jesus Christ, and Easter as thus kept is a THE LYING SPIRIT 449 yearly tribute to Christ's victorious triumpli over heathen superstition and ignorance. The very words Sunday and Easter, by reason of their heathen ori- gin, are but reminders, and thus standing witnesses of Clirist 's triumph over Satan. Denial of these self-evident facts is but an attempt of the Lying Spirit to turn truth into a lie. Eead John 5 ; 21-27 ; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 2 : 14,15 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 17. In the first text, Jesus claimed to have power over death because of life in Himself, and, as this power belonged primarily only to God, it would prove Him to be the Son of God. But to prove this claim to man, He must needs meet the supreme test by Himself passing through death and overcoming it in resurrection. Also ^Hhat through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime sub- ject to bondage.'' By thus proving Himself to ^'be the son of God with power," in overcoming death. He proved His power to deliver from sin and death. And since, because of His relation to man as the Son of man, all judgment is committed unto Him, He is the sole hope of salvation; and therefore ^^all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father," and they honor the Father by thus honoring the Son because He is the Son. But the proof of all this is the Resurrection, for, otherwise Christ's claim to being the Son of God would have proven false. The Resurrection is therefore the reason of our faith, the ground of our hope, and the pledge of our salvation. 450 APPENDIX But in liis efforts to withstand the power of the testimony of the Eesurreetion, Satan, as the Lying Spirit, must needs use every possible means to turn truth into a lie. As the great standing witness to the Resurrection, the Sunday Sabbath cannot fail to receive a due share of his attention. As it points to the Eesurree- tion, it testifies to Christ's triumph over Satan. As it points to heathen sun-worship or to the authority of the Catholic church, it testifies to Satan's triumph in perverting the true worship of God. There can be no doubt as to how Satan would have it point, and all efforts to make it point as he would have it point can only be inspired by him whose interest is thereby served, and are therefore but attempts of the Lying Spirit to turn truth into a lie. In 1 John 4 : 1-3 we are told, ^'Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God : and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.'' Adventists confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. So do all orthodox Christians who yet differ on Sabbath doctrine. Hence the spirit of the Sabbath doctrine must be tested by its own con- fession. Wherein, or in what sense, does the spirit of the Saturday Sabbath confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? The Resurrection testimony of the Sunday Sab- THE LYING SPIRIT 451 Latli is a clear confession that Jesus Christ is come an the flesh. The doctrine that the Sunday Sabbath is only a I'elic of pagan sun-worship and the mark of the beast is a positive denial of its Resurrection testimony, and the denial of Resurrection testimony is of the spirit that seeks to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. That the Sunday Sabbath, in its unbroken leading back to the Resurrection, and in its being kept in commemoration of the Resurrection, and is therefore the great standing witness to the Resurrection, is a self evident fact — self evident to all who are not hopelessly theory blinded. To deny a self evident fact is to insult reason, and to shut the eyes to facts for the sake of theory is to open the ears to the Lying Spirit. To cling to a doctrine against all the evidence of reason and the Bible can only be due to the hypnotic power of the doctrine in its flattering appeal, and to the prejudice involved by reason of early train- ing, lifelong association, and faith in human teachers and leaders. All of which influences, as against the Bible, Adventists themselves are loud in attribut- ing to the Lying Spirit. MUSICOLOGY. A TEXT-BOOK FOR SCHOOLS AND FOR GENERAL USE. By Maurice S. Logan. I have mucli pleasure in commending ^^Musico- logy^' as an excellent book for reference. Touch- ing as it does on so many departments of musical science, it is necessarily brief in its treatment of some subjects, to each of which a separate volume could well be devoted. The plan of the work, how- ever, is excellent and has been admirably executed. * ^ Musicology ' ' deserves a place in every music lov- er's library. Dr. Edward Fisher — Musical Director ' — Toronto Conservatory of Music. Permit me to congratulate you most heartily upon the most compendious and comprehensive work of its kind that I have ever seen. Being an author my- self, I can appreciate the time you must have spent, and the trouble you must have taken, in writing a work that practically covers the whole of the theory and science of music. I would particularly com- pliment you upon the tables and diagrams which abound throughout the work, and students will find the very systematic manner in which the subject is presented, of the greatest value. Musicology, in fact, is a book that every musician should have in his library. — Dr. J. Humphrey Anger — Science of Music — Toronto Conservatory of Music. After close inspection, we find ^^Musicology" one of the best books of its kind that we have looked over in some time. — Dr. Stephen Commery — Director and Manager — West side Musical College, Cleveland. I do not like the title ' ^ Musicology. ' ' The sub- ject matter is good, best ever. — W. B. Strong — State College of Washington, School of Music. A FEW CONDENSED PEESS NOTICES. ^^Musicology'' is an admirable text-book on the science of music. The explanations and definitions are clear and correct. A great deal of ground is covered, and pupils may study the book with much advantage to themselves. — Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. This book is handsomely bound and bears the title ^'Musicology. '^ It is of especial interest to vocal teachers and singers, professional or scholars. — Item, Mobile, Ala. ^^Musicology'' is a valuable book for musicians, especially students who desire to more thoroughly understand the science of music, and it is a volume that may be said to be unique, in that it seems to be about the first one of its kind. — Courier, Buffalo, N. Y. The volume is brief, simple, and adapted for the use which the writer intends. — Mail Empire, Tor- onto, Can. A useful and interesting text-book on the theory of music, and on liarmony and counterpoint, includ- ing a short summary of acoustics from the musical view. — New York Sun. The teaching of its pages is sound. The author is master of the subject, and can be followed safely. The book will repay careful study by abundant re- turns. — Evening News, Buffalo. As taught in the public schools to-day, music is rather an unsatisfactory subject, and this book is designed to give it dignity and value. To the piano man of scientific bent the work will have interest as a treatise on the science of music. It is doubtful if there is anything of importance in the science of music that this book does not explain. — The Indicator, Chicago, 111. It is a work on musical science, dealing with the theory and philosophy of music, and the title represents the coining of a word for the first time to indicate the science of music. This science will doubtless now join the other ^^ologies" and take its right place among them. — The Musical Trade Review, New York City. At last a work has appeared that meets the actual needs of those who teach the science of music. . . . . '^Musicology" is the only work that will meet this deficit in school education. — The Herald, Grand Rapids, Mich. ^^Musicology'^ is a very useful book on musical instruction. — Press, Pittsburgh, Pa. It deals with the theoretical phases of music from a scientific, yet popular, point of view, and in a clear text-book style. Music students will find much general and practical information between the covers. — The Sacramento Union, Sacramento, Cal. Under the title of ^'Musicology'^ comes a book that would not be amiss in every home boasting of a musical instrument. Its author has managed to compress a vast amount of information between the two covers. — Oakland Tribune, Oakland, Cal. The book covers a tremendous amount of ground and should prove helpful to the average musician or amateur, because of the great amount of information therein. — The Violin World, New York City. It is bound to be of interest to musicians and mu- sical students. — World-Herald, Omaha, Neb. The book accomplishes its purpose, in so writing the musical rules and methods that those who have studied no branch of the art can understand musical structure. — The Violinist, Chicago, 111. A work on the science of music is decidedly acceptable. The author shows an extensive knowl- edge of the subject. We expect that teachers will find the volume very useful. — Post Express, Roches- ter, N. Y. ^'Musicology" is one of the best text-books for use in the schools which has been placed upon the market in recent years, giving in the simplest form the elementary instruction which every student re- quires. It is a book which every music student should own. — Portland Evening Express, Portland, Me. Cloth — $1.50 postpaid. Hinds, Noble & Eldridge, Publishers, 31-35 West 15th Street, New York City. LORD'S DAY ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES "Remember the Sabbath Day to Keep it Holy." BRIEF SKETCH OF ORIGIN AND ORGANIZATION Early in 1888 a movement was started to form a National Sabbath organization and on May 15th the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on request of many Sabbath Associations and friends of the Christian Sabbath, took definite action on the same and appointed twenty-one charter members to represent them. Similar action was also taken by the Presbyterians (all branches), Baptists, Reformed Church in America and Lutherans. Still later other evangelical churches were added until there are sixteen denominations now represented, those additional to the above being the Congregational, Disciples, Meth- odist Episcopal (South) Moravian, Protestant Episcopal, Re- formed Episcopal, Reformed Church in the U. S., United Brethren in Christ and United American Methodist Episcopal. It is distinctly an Inter-denominational organisation. The members were convened for organization at the home of Mr. Elliott F, Shepard, New York, November 13th. The organiza- tion took the name of The American Sabbath Union. Mr. Shepard was elected President, and Rev. J. H. Knowles, General Secretary and Editor of Publications, to serve until the early convening of the first annual meeting. This annual meeting occurred, together with the first National Sabbath Convention, December 11-13, in the Foundry Methodist Episcopal Church, Washington, D. C, the arrangements being made by the Convention Committee, Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts and Rev. J. H. Knowles, with the advice of Chi- cago members of the Union. The first regular meeting was held in New York at the home of Mr. Shepard, Dec. 18, 1888. General O. O. Howard offered the opening prayer. Mr. Shepard was elected President pro tem, and afterward President. Rev. J. H. Knowles, D.D., was elected General Secretary. CHANGE OF NAME IN 1908 At a Convention of delegates from various religious, industrial, and social bodies held in Pittsburgh, Pa., December 1-3, 1908, to consider the proposition of forming a "Lord's Day Alliance," the American Sabbath Union was unanimously requested to make such changes in its Constitution and methods as the times seemed to demand and thus constitute the enlarged organization. In observance of this request the revised Constitution and By-Laws now governing the organization were framed on January 12, 1909, by a Joint Com- mittee of the American Sabbath Union and of the Pittsburgh Con- vention. The National organization now includes ten States and sectional auxiliary and affiliated societies. OBJECT To defend and preserve the Lord's Day as a day of rest and worship and to urge and secure one day of rest in seven for all the toiling masses. By safe and progressive methods it works for the enforcement of Sunday laws and the securing of other legislation in the interest of the laboring forces and of Christian citizenship. SUPPORT It is supported by free will offerings of churches, societies and individuals. It desires and earnestly seeks the establishment of an endowment which would place it on a permanent foundation and prompt to far greater endeavors in this urgently necessary depart- ment of United Christian activity. If the outstanding problems of the Church and Communities heading up in Sabbath Desecration are to be solved, such a National Organization as this with its state and district auxiliaries must solve them. Let every friend of the Lord's Day, every believer in the weekly rest day, give his support. SEND US YOUR SUBSCRIPTION for as large an amount as you can give. EVERY CONTRIBUTOR whose name and address we have, receives free of charge FOR ONE YEAR the "LORD'S DAY LEADER," our official Bi-monthly publication. Send us requests for engagements to deliver addresses before Churches, Societies, Schools, Colleges, Seminaries, Social and Indus- trial Organizations. Inform us of violations of the Sunday laws and ask our help, which will be gladly given wherever possible. Your correspondence will receive prompt attention. Send all communications to LORD^S DAY ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES GENERAL SECRETARY 203 Broadway, New York City Incorporated 1800, PUBLICATIONS AND LITERATURE OF THE Lord's Day Alliance of the United States t. Automobile, The Sunday. W. H. Scott ic. Baseball Sports and Games on the Lord's Day ic. Golf Sunday Golf. C. E. Jefferson, D.D ic. — 25c. per 100 Using a Good Game in a Wrong Way Malcolm James MacLeod ic. Lord's Day Alliance How the Alliance Operates. John McDowell, D.D free Lord's Day Service — Special program for Lord's Day Week, (or Convenient Sunday), Young People's Societies, Churches. Supplied in quantities — sample free. Lord's Day Leader — the bi-monthly publication (samples free) 25c. yearly Results or Things Accomplished free Vital Facts for Vigorous Action free Moving Picture Shows, Sunday — Why?. ic. — 25c. per 100 Railroads and the Sabbath ic. Theatre, Vaudeville, etc. — Sunday (in preparation) ic. The Sabbath Sabbath Theology. M. S. Logan $1.50 (A reply to those who insist that Saturday is the only true Sabbath Day) Scientific Demonstration of the Sabbath Law, Haegler IC — 6oc. per 100 The Sabbath for Man. Wilbur F. Crafts, D.D $1.50 The Sabbath, The Pearl of Days. David G. Wylie, D.D. 25c. per 100 Brochure on the Sabbath Question. I. W. Hathaway, D.D. Sc— $3 per 100 The Pearl of Days — The Civil Sabbath. Josiah Strong, D.D... ic. Abuses of the American Sabbath. W. J. R. Taylor, D.D ic. The Fourth Commandment Binding on the Christian Conscience. Francis C. Cantine ic. The Situation, A. A. Robbins ic. Greetings to Young People of Our Country 25c. per 100 The Sabbath Question. F. J. Stanley, D.D ic. Sunday Is Sunday the Sabbath? I. W. Hathaway, D.D 5c. — $3 per 100 Sunday Rest in the Twentieth Century. Dr. Alex. Jackson.. 50c. Should the State Protect a Day of Rest? Merrill E, Gates, LL.D ic. The Sunday Newspaper. David James Burrell, D.D., LL.D ic. The Sunday Newspaper. Alexander Mackay Smith, D.D ic. Miscellaneous Annual Reports of Lord's Day Alliance, 1898-1916. Limited number free on application Home Influence. Mrs. J. H. Knowles ic. The above literature sent post-paid on receipt of price and in- formation gladly given. OFFICERS OF THE ALLIANCE President, James Yereance, 128 Broadway, N. Y. General Secretary, Rev. Harry L. Bowlby, 203 Broadway, N. Y. Treasurer, George M. Thomson, 203 Broadway, N. Y. Counsel, Robert G. Davey General Field Secretary, Rev. G. W, Grannis, D.D., Long Beach, Calif. National Legislative Secretary, Rev. W.W. Davis, Ph. D., Washington, D. C. Field Secretary for Greater New York, Rev. Thomas J. Stevenson, D. D., New York GENERAL OFFICE, 203 BROADWAY, NEW YORK Date Due ^_ ■**'*-IS^^ >v ■r?r^^^^^ ► ■•••■•fc^ Mrr> -■Jv't 1 f ■•«'*■ ^^M^ M _.,., ceton Theological ;>-^peer Library 1 1012 01003 2839