Before entering upon this subject, it will be proper for me to state, that
some time last August the editor of the Bible Advocate, being pressed by
his brethren to open his columns for the discussion of the Sabbath
question, rather reluctantly complied, by first giving his views against
it. He stated that he should first give C. Stowe’s view, in the
affirmative, covering the whole ground, and then the view of some other
writer in the negative, before he published any thing more on the other
side, and so on. Sister Stowe’s piece, accompanied by the views of the
editor, appeared in the B. A., Sept. 2d, 1847. C. Stowe sent the editor
two articles, as she says. The editor saw proper to publish her second
article and withhold the first, for purposes best known to himself.
Perhaps it was considered objectionable, as the editor of the Advent
Harbinger had refused to publish it for her. So for some reason or other,
only part of the ground was covered, and not one candid objection or
examination offered to her second, except by a certain character, who,
apparently, was ashamed to have his real name known among honest seekers
for the truth. So far as the subject has advanced, J. Croffut, of N. Y.
city, J. B. Cook, of New Bedford, Mass. and A. Carpender, of Sutton, Vt.
have spoken in the affirmative. The negative is advocated by the editor,
Joseph Turner and Barnabas, and perhaps two others; besides what has been
teeming from the Advent Harbinger, in the negative. Now, I do not
re-examine Turner and Barnabas, because they have not been ably replied to
by J. Croffut, J. B. Cook and C. Stowe of N. H., but because I see the
necessity of taking up the subject in a different form, without being
restricted, as all generally are, who write for papers. Another important
point which governs me, is, that all the little flock may understand the
true bearings of the subject, for there are undoubtedly a great many that
do not see the Bible Advocate, and because I felt like taking a part in
this great subject, in which I feel deeply interested, and I see from the
commencement that I was excluded from that paper, by the statement that C.
Stowe would cover the whole ground in the affirmative. I furthermore
perceived there were additional objections to their unscriptural views,
which continued to be presented to my mind.
JOSEPH TURNER in attempting to prove that Sunday, the first day of the
week is the seventh day of the week, and therefore the proper Sabbath, has
failed to make out his case. His proposed foundation is from Matt. xii:
39, 40. “But he answered and said unto them, an evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it,
but the sign of the prophet Jonas, for as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth.” He says, “to rear the temple of
this body in three days, or to remain in the heart of the earth three
nights and to rise the _third_ day was, according to the above scripture,
to be a sign. I will now prove by Christ and his disciples that this sign
was literally given, and that he arose, not the second, but _third_ early
in the morning.” This statement is not true. The above scripture states
_three_ days, and not as you say you will now prove _in_ three days. If it
proves any thing, it proves three whole days, and then of course the
Saviour would rise on the fourth day. This, according to your mode of
calculating, would make the seventh day come on Monday. If you want the
third day, or within three days, why not take as many as you need for your
argument, from the eighteen other texts, and not take this isolated one,
and then pervert it, as you have done. The only object that I can see, in
your perversion of the text, is to prove, as you say, that Jesus was three
nights in the heart of the earth, viz.: Friday night, one; Saturday night,
two, and Sabbath night, three. You say, “that Christ was actually raised
the _third_ day and not the second, as tradition holds it.” I am not aware
of any such tradition. That would be perverting the whole eighteen texts
instead of the one you have done. But that he was raised the third day,
and that third day was the first of the week, is the joint testimony of
the four evangelists, Matt. xxviii: 1; Mark xvi: 2; Luke xxiv: 1; John xx:
1. But let us see how you have obtained these _three_ nights as stated
above, which, as you say, “proves triumphantly that ‘OUR SABBATH’ is the
seventh day.” First read the second paragraph in your P. S., where you
have attempted to pervert the plain and clear testimony of Luke, in chap.
xxiii: 54, 56. Here you stated one scriptural fact: That the Sabbath
always commenced at evening. “From evening to evening shall you celebrate
your Sabbath.” Then, as a most natural consequence, the next day would
begin where the Sabbath ended, and so of every other day thenceforward, or
chaos and confusion would follow. This also perfectly agrees with God’s
manner of commencing time at the creation: “The evening (first,) and the
morning is the first day,” &c. Now as you have shown that Friday was the
first day of the crucifixion and that it was so far spent and passed away
at the time our Lord was buried, that the women could not have got home
and prepared spices, (which probably was not more than twenty minutes
labor,) before the next day began. How, and by what authority do you claim
Friday night? Does Friday night come after twenty-four hours of that day
are spent? You see how difficult God makes the way of transgressors. You
may reply that you made a mistake. Will you allow me to tell you where
your mistake commenced on this subject. If I am not very much mistaken it
was when you gave up keeping the true seventh day, the only historical,
chronological or biblical day of the week ever given to man. Well, you may
say, I have made some converts. True—but they are also deceived, and many
very likely rejoicing in it like D. B. WYATT, who seems to have swallowed
the whole, and is endeavoring, with the assistance of the Advent
Harbinger, (although they are at antipodes respecting the commandments of
God,) to spread the glad tidings far and wide. This editor is in no wise
particular about men and measures to accomplish his Jesuitical purpose, to
annihilate the very foundation and superstructure of the Bible, “the
commandments of God.” Matt. xxii: 40. This wonderful piece of Advent
intelligence is recorded in the same paper with D. B. Wyatt’s, Sept 9,
1847. See also April 28, page 38. Let it be well understood here also,
that this man and J. V. Himes, editor of the Advent Herald, are the two,
and only two, editors and papers in this country, which William Miller of
Lowhampton, N. Y. recommends to give the light on the second Advent. The
meat in due season.
Your erroneous doctrine is heartily welcomed by some here, and many I
understand in New Bedford, and very likely many in other places. Yes, I
have heard of it away on the Lakes. I was told by one the other day who
had backslidden like yourself, that it was the best argument he had yet
seen. Now if you undertake to rectify your mistake, it is possible you may
destroy all their joy, until some one presents another error—for the
truth, it seems, they are determined not to have. Again, you say, “let my
brethren remember that the law of Moses, made the first day of the feast
of the passover, a sabbath in which no work should be done; this was the
Sabbath that drew on. Moreover, I will here prove that the next day
following the crucifixion, was not the Sabbath of the Lord, which the Jews
at that time kept.—See Luke xxiii: 54.” Now, I say if you will read the
next two verses, 55 and 56, which are connected with 54, it will
positively contradict your assertion, for it proves that they did keep the
next day as the Sabbath, according to the commandment, and the seventh-day
Sabbath was and is, the only Sabbath commandment in the whole bible. You
pass this over and cite us to Matt xxvii: 62, 64, and base your whole
proof on _inference_. It is this, that the Jews were so strict and pious
in the observance of the Sabbath that they would not have gone to Pilate
on that day to have asked him to set a watch over the body of Jesus, if it
had been the Sabbath, because it would be an important fact to record
against them. “How easy to have said in this record that the Jews on the
Sabbath,” &c. Yes sir, it would have been just as easy for _your_ purpose,
to have said in this record also, that “OUR SABBATH _is the Seventh day_.”
Then probably you would not have to answer for the sin which you have in
these instances, knowingly committed. Besides this, you must have
calculated largely on the credulity of your readers, to suppose that _all_
of them would swallow such absurdities. As that men, who had just
committed one of the most aggravating crimes ever recorded in the annals
of history, in barbarously and cruelly murdering the son of the living
God, should then for fear of having it recorded against them as touching
the purity of their motives that they had violated the holy Sabbath of God
by calling on the Governor, on the Sabbath of the Lord God, to set a watch
over their victim, for fear that some of his disciples would come and
steal him away, and thus openly expose them to the scorn of the world.
This is your proof why the next day after the crucifixion could not be the
Sabbath. How unfortunate and trying it must be to you, who, after being so
highly extalled by your hearers in New Bedford, Fairhaven, &c., for your
clear and plain Holy Ghost living and preaching, to have to flee to such
mean subterfuges to establish a position to justify your backsliding from
the plain and positive texts which stand right in your way.
Respecting your text in Matt. xii: 40. If you made use of it as it stands,
it would positively prove the resurrection to be on the closing hours of
Monday, between 3 and 6 P.M. and not in the morning, as every where
recorded. So then, to fulfill your text to the very extent, and have the
resurrection in the morning, it must be on Tuesday morning, for, Monday
morning would bring you twelve hours too soon, only two and a half days
instead of three. This would make _your_ Sabbath, as you exultingly claim
it for your adherents, come on Monday; that is, by your new mode of
establishing the Sabbath. And then D. B. Wyatt, if he followed your
strange view, would have to recall his address to his brethren and change
the time of celebrating the Lord’s Supper on Monday evening, and have it
on Tuesday. I presume the editor of the Harbinger would have no objections
to the alteration, provided Mr. W. was satisfied.
I know it is stated that Jonas was three days and three nights in the
whale’s belly. I know of no way to prove it but by the recorded time that
our Lord was in the earth. You see that Matthew says _as he was_ three
days, &c. Now for the proof of how long _he was there_. First
testimony—his disciples, Luke xxiv: 21-23. Second testimony—Angels, v: 7.
Third testimony—Jesus himself, 46 v. “Thus it behoved Christ to suffer and
to rise from the dead the _third_ day.” This testimony, be it remembered,
was given a few hours after the resurrection, on the same day. Here then
is the proof of what Jesus had before asserted, recorded ten times by the
evangelist, and once by Paul; 1st Cor. xv: 4; Matt. xvi: 21; xvii: 23; xx:
19; Mark ix: 31; x: 34 and viii: 31;(1) Luke ix: 22; xiii: 32; xviii: 33;
John ii: 19. And five times by his accusers, Matt. xxvi: 61; xxviii: 40
and 63; Mark xiv: 58; xv: 29. Every one of these eighteen texts records
the resurrection _in_ three, some of them _within_ three days; and not a
syllable about _nights_. The one in Matt xii: 40, says three days and
three nights, referring to Jonas, as above. Now I ask, shall we take this
one isolated text, out of the harmony of the whole eighteen, _and then
pervert it_, to prove that some how or other the world have lost one day,
and therefore the first day of the week is the seventh. We all know that
our judgment always rests on the majority or weight of evidence. Here then
we have seven to one besides the testimony of Jesus himself after his
resurrection, that he arose the _third_ day, and clearly demonstrating
that he did not lie there three days and three nights, and proving, to my
judgment, that Jonas was also delivered the third day. See other scripture
rules, Esther iv: 16, 17, and v: 1. Here the Jews were to fast three days,
but Esther ended it the _third_. See also 1st Kings, xx: 29, the seven
days ended on the seventh. Also, Gen. xvii: 12, eight days. Lev. xii: 3,
shows the eighth the same. Thus we see that the testimony of Jesus is
clear.
It is clear to my mind that the Lord Jesus was not at furthest, more than
thirty-eight hours in the tomb, and yet he was there, according to
scripture proof, a part of Friday, the sixth day, _all_ of the seventh
day, Sabbath, and a part of Sunday, the first day, which last was the
third day. Proof, Luke xxiii: 54-56. “And that day was the preparation and
the Sabbath drew on.” Mark this, that the preparation had come, and they
were drawing to the Sabbath. _See here_, the preparation was always on the
day of the Passover, the fourteenth of the first month. The feast day was
the fifteenth, the next day. Let Moses give the time: “And ye shall keep
it up [the Lamb] until the fourteenth day of the same month, and the whole
assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.” Exo.
xii: 6. The original—see margin—reads _between the two evenings_. See the
same in Num. xxviii: 4,—practiced and carried out even to lighting the
lamps in the tabernacle. Exo. xxx: 8.
Now our blessed Lord expired on the cross at the very time that this
preparation always took place for 1670 years before, namely, the ninth
hour, (Matt. xxvii, and Mark xv,) three o’clock in the afternoon. Then
between the two evenings is just three hours, from 3 to 6 P. M. Keep this
clear in mind and you will clearly understand how the disciples could have
three hours from the death of their master to see him put in the tomb, to
have gone and “bought sweet spices.” (Mark xvi: 1,) and be ready to keep
the Sabbath according to the commandment, (please read it in Exo. xx:
8-11,) as stated in Luke xxiii: 54-56. You will understand Mark xv: 42,
“Now when the even was come because it was the preparation, _that is the
day before the Sabbath_,” that it was the ninth hour, or 3 P.M. Here the
preparation goes on for three hours, until the Sabbath commenced. You see
he says this was the day before the Sabbath, and when the Sabbath was
passed, early in the morning of the first day, they found he had arisen.
Mark xvi. Here then is the three days: The day before the Sabbath he was
entombed, between the hours of 3 and 6 P.M., and the day after the
Sabbath, the first day of the week, he arose. As J. B. Cook says, I can
conceive of nothing more definite. Whitby and Scott say, “It is a received
rule among the Jews that a part of a day is put for a whole day.” And so,
let me add, it is with the commercial nations of the earth. Every bill, or
note, or deed, counts the day of its date and the day of its
extinguishment. For instance, the transaction of an interest note takes
place at half past 11 o’clock in the evening of the first day of January,
1847, and the interest is cast to the first day of January, 1848, the
demand for it would be valid if called for at 30 minutes A. M. after
midnight. Both of these dates are counted days in this and all other kinds
of business transactions, as we reckon time. And I say it is impossible
for any rational being to understand it in any other way. When one day
ends the next begins, and so I have amply shown is the bible rule. Then,
according to the testimony adduced, if the Saviour was placed in the tomb
any where between the hours of 3 and 6 o’clock P. M. on Friday, then I say
that day was as much counted for one, as the day on which he arose; and no
man, not even J. Turner, undertakes to say that it was more than a part of
a day. That this work of preparation was all accomplished before the
Sabbath came, is perfectly clear from the two passages already quoted in
Luke and Mark. See also John xix: 31. Here then the antetype agrees
perfectly with the type, all the preparation work accomplished between the
hours of three and six in the evening, called between the two evenings.
Much also has been said about the next day, the fifteenth being a Jewish
festival Sabbath, and therefore God’s seventh-day Sabbath could not
possibly be until the day after. Just as well might it be asserted when
our fourth of July happens to fall on Sunday, that it could not be Sunday,
because it was the anniversary of our independence, but the next day would
be Sunday. This explains all the difficulty. This feast day of theirs
always following the Passover day, happened this year to come on God’s
holy Sabbath day, hence the peculiar expression of John, “for that Sabbath
was an high day.” God’s instruction to Moses respecting all the feast days
is right to the point, “_Every thing upon his day._” Lev. xxiii: 37. You
see there is no provision to defer the Sabbath festivals whenever they
happened on the Sabbath of the Lord our God.
Now I think the above Scriptures do clearly and incontrovertibly establish
the resurrection to have been on Sunday morning, the first day of the
week, and the day before, on which the Saviour rested in the tomb and his
disciples in the city of Jerusalem, was the seventh day of the week, the
Sabbath of the Lord our God, according to the commandment; and the day
before that, viz. on Friday, he was crucified and buried. This clearly
overthrows your unscriptural arguments to establish the first day of the
week for the seventh-day Sabbath.
I have gone much further into this argument than I should, had I not have
heard and seen the incalculable mischief that was being accomplished by
the spread of such an argument; from one too, who is looked upon by those
not personally acquainted with him as an ambassador, fully approved of
God; a pillar in the church of these last days; one who is fully competent
to preach and take the lead in camp-meetings, &c. &c. And still I feel
there is a duty devolving upon me, which I ought not to shrink from,
notwithstanding his high profession, and being fostered, and upheld as a
brother beloved, by the Advent papers.
It is that since the winter of 1845, you have, by your deceptive arts, and
false expositions of God’s Word, taught and practiced ridiculous things in
the churches, such as God never has, nor ever will approve. Your
confession last spring in the Boston Conference seemed more like
justifying and exalting yourself from your debased and fallen condition,
than a bible confession, which says, “confess your faults one to another.”
But you perceived, I suppose with others, that it had become fashionable
to confess the monstrous errors in our past experience in the advent
doctrine to those who had drawn back and organized under the Laodocean
state of the church. And also, that J. Marsh of Rochester, and others from
different places, were distinguishing themselves by their wonderful
confessions; therefore you also confessed how sorry you were for the
mischief (or injury) that you had done the cause of God by writing and
preaching the doctrine of _shut door_ and _Bridegroom come_. Here you
attempted to put down and destroy two of the most important and prominent
truths according to the types and new testament teaching, with our history
in the past, that is connected with the “twenty-three hundred days,” and
“cleansing of, or vindicating the sanctuary”; and use them as a scape goat
to carry off and hide your unholy and iniquitous practices from their
view. Why not confess that after you and A. Hale had published this clear
scriptural view, that you had been so positive that you were right in your
position, that at one of your meeting places in Portsmouth, N. H., you
declared that you was ready to seal it with your own heart’s blood, and
that the appointment which you afterwards made to meet at Richard
Walker’s, if not, you would state the reason by writing, had been utterly
disregarded, although you had passed through there several times. Why not
confess with contrition your unscriptural teachings and practices? And
lastly, why not inform your listening audience of the wonderful discovery
and proficiency which you had made during that time, in the growing
science of your predecessors, “Jannes and Jambres?” and what a loving
drawing and wonderful effect this mesmeric influence produced on some of
the dear sisters! You was aware that such kind of satanic practices would
not go down with your hearers, therefore you withheld it probably for a
more convenient season. The response from heaven to this confession (I
think) is long since recorded by a servant of the Lord. Isa. i: 10-15.
Since you began to preach in New Bedford, where it was said such a
wonderful revival was following your preaching and practice, that some in
Fairhaven were looked upon as sinners, because they would not believe that
you were filled with the Holy Ghost. Here in New Bedford, I am told, that
in reply to some of these charges: that you had studied or looked into the
subject of mesmerism that you might ascertain the cause, or meaning, of
the delusions practiced by the advent people. I think that by comparing
dates, it may pretty clearly be known that this is one of the first and
principal causes of the state of things now among many in Maine,
especially where your influence was felt. In the course of this
conversation you stated something else, which you will remember, and for
fear, or something else, that it would not be believed, you said you could
prove it by certain persons whom you named. I have since ascertained that
these persons neither _know_, nor have ever _known_, or _have intimated
any such thing_. Now, I ask, how much your confessions are worth in Boston
or any where else. In the name of my Master, I here warn the little flock
to beware of your ungodly teaching.
Since answering your argument on the first day for the seventh, I see by
the Advocate of Dec. 16th, your exulting reply to J. B. Cook. Because he
has not met every point of your twisted, sophistical argument, you now
think it will stand forever. You say “The position _I_ have taken will
stand the onset of _all_ while the eternal rock of inspiration stands
secure; hence with confidence calm as heaven, I take my pen to reply,” &c.
We read that “the Devils believe and tremble,” while this wonderful man is
_calm_ as _heaven_, because he thinks he has gained one day since the
crucifixion, which would destroy the law of God, the fourth commandment,
when in fact he has only stole six or eight hours. Perhaps he will try to
borrow or take the balance in the forthcoming articles which he promises.
And here he says again, “_the matter shall_ REST _without a_ REVIEW ON
EITHER SIDE”!! “Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher!” Will God’s word
forever remain unvindicated, because of your veto? Your one mistake that I
have shown, proves your infallibility. Let me repeat it in connection: In
your text, Matt. xii: 39, 40, it states three days and three nights. This
itself overthrows the whole of your argument—for three days are just as
long as three nights. See how it will work by _your_ rule: Jesus entombed
just about 6 P.M. on Friday. Now count—Friday evening, one night; Saturday
evening, two nights; Sunday evening, three nights. Now for the days:
Saturday, one; Sunday, two; and Monday three. But to make it three, the
resurrection must be on Monday evening, at 6 o’clock, and the scripture
says he arose in the morning! Then if you wait until Tuesday morning, you
make it just three and a half days and four nights, and _your_ Sabbath
commences on Monday. But if you say it must be Monday morning, then you
have but two days and twelve hours. You say this would be the third day,
just as I say—true, but this text says “three days.” Besides, you say in
your second article, “some have been so _vain_ on this point as to count
the day of the crucifixion, one; the next day, one; and then the morning
while it was yet dark, one; and therefore the third day. _This is almost
wicked._ Does not Jesus Christ in whose word we trust—say three _nights_?”
Yes, sir, and does he not as expressly say three _days_, too? If we are
almost wicked in counting, as _you_ say, then all the evangelists were,
Mark and Luke especially. I say there is no other rule but the one you
call us _vain_ for using. If it is almost wicked to count a part of the
first day, for one day, by what authority do you count a part of the last
day, for one day? The scripture no where says, _two_ days, and _three_
nights.
And then as I have shown where you borrowed a part of a night, by counting
Friday night for one of your three nights, when you insisted upon it that
it was past, because the disciples had no time left of Friday to even
prepare their spices. Did you not see that if you claimed six hours of
Friday, to break the scriptures, that the disciples would have just as
much time to prepare for the Sabbath? How is it that you do not understand
what the angel Gabriel said should be in the last days: “But the wicked
shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand.” I really hope
no one will be troubled with your forthcoming article. It would be far
easier for you to shovel the Alleghany mountains into Lake Ontario than to
attempt to gain one day, or prove that we have lost one.
Your threat about the fallacy of history, and what you will do about it,
is also vain; yet, if you could do so, the bible is a sufficient rule in
this case. You have therefore made but two and a half days and two nights,
and work it which way you will, you will fail. You cannot destroy the
validity of the other eighteen texts.
It is clear that the Jewish feasts always occurred when they fell on the
Sabbath of the Lord. Lev. xxiii: 37, last cl.