SIR—I was very glad when learned that your columns were to be opened for
the discussion of the Sabbath question, for I thought if you would allow
this subject to be fairly brought out, God’s holy law would be vindicated
and more strictly revered; but I soon see this was, and would be, an
unequal warfare. To prevent any one’s writing but C. Stowe of N. H., you
say her argument will cover, or about cover, the whole ground in favor of
the Jewish, or seventh-day Sabbath, and then no one else, until some one
had replied against it, &c. This was very well, but I soon perceived that
you did not keep the ship on her course. The first part of C. Stowe’s
article, to cover the whole ground, has never yet appeared, and should it
come forth at this late hour of the discussion, it would probably avail as
much as you mean it shall in its isolated state. But to prevent what you
did publish for her, in the same paper, (Sept. 2d,) you gave your own
unscriptural view, to go with it. This, of course, still more prejudiced
your hearers, as you had before that stated objections. I am not sorry,
however, that it is still going on in some shape, if it is partly in
disguise. We hear that you have now on hand five times as much matter
against the Sabbath as you have for it. This is all natural enough, God’s
word has ever been advocated by the minority. And when such blasphemous
language against the Saviour we are looking for, was permitted to blacken
your columns, and again reiterated that he was right, and you not only let
it pass unnoticed, but was endeavoring to screen him by withdrawing his
real name from God’s children. The inference is, and must be, strong
against you. Look at your position now! THE BIBLE ADVOCATE!! Show if you
can the chapter and verse where the BIBLE allows any man to advocate God’s
word, that ever withheld his real name and where those that stood in high
places were trying to screen them, because as we should have a good right
to suppose, that they were in fellowship with their doctrine. How do the
columns of THE BIBLE ADVOCATE look now, since you have opened the way for
them to follow your unrighteous course, to debase and still hold up God’s
holy law as a Jewish ritual, that had been abolished. It looks to me like
the same horn that is to “prevail against the saints until the ancient of
days comes.” “He thought to change times and laws;” (God’s laws without
doubt.) He, then, through this agency, has been blackening your columns
with his iron hoof. The Devil has been too long engaged in this war to
pass any one’s enclosure, who has left his gate open, without walking in
and taking possession. How could you be so careless or wilful, after
warring with him as you have done in the past, to leave the way open for
him to tread you down. Another thing: In your paper of Dec. 23d, you say,
“Br. Turner, have you sent your second article on the Sabbath? We have not
received it.” Why in so much haste for this wonderful promised article, to
overthrow history, after he has overthrown himself by the bible? Why not
publish some of the so much manuscript you have already on hand? I cannot
help thinking, after all, that you have no faith in your own argument of a
no-Sabbath, no-commandment system, hence this partial call for J. Turner
to speak again. His view is really the very thing! It is just as it used
to be. If T. has got it right the discussion is forever ended, and we have
always been right, but did not know it; if we had, we should not have
resorted to these puzzling arguments of Paul to prove that there is no
Sabbath, to get clear of plain, bible doctrine!
As I have answered nearly all your arguments against the Sabbath and
commandments, in my work on the Sabbath, and Waymarks, and lastly in my
reply to the Advent Harbinger, under the head of the Four Pillar system, I
shall be brief because I want to say a word upon another subject that you
have named. You say, “to assume or infer that the Sabbath was commanded to
men before the Exode from Egypt, is to walk as blind men. But at creation
Adam’s first day was the seventh day, or day on which God rested. Hence,
if Adam kept Sabbath, he kept the first day, and then worked six days.”
Who said so? Not the bible. You would try to make out that Adam
contradicted and disobeyed God’s law, just as you have. Suppose you were
born on Friday, the sixth day, would the next day, the seventh, be your
first or second day? Your argument is not worth a straw; Adam’s first day
was Friday, the sixth day, and if he had been created the seventh day,
that would have made no difference. How strange you talk! Because man
should happen to come into life upon any other than the first day, then he
must surely violate the Sabbath by doing his six days work first! This is
in perfect keeping with “let every man be persuaded in his own mind,” and
not keep any. God rested the seventh day and blessed and sanctified it.
Surely it is not so dangerous to follow God’s example as it is to
contradict and disobey him. Such as these are the blind men. [See first
three pages of work on the Sabbath.]
Again, you say, “how long was the covenant or law of ten commandments to
remain in force and effect, and answer Gal. iii, till Christ shall come.”
Under the third Pillar, I have answered this. The law of circumcision, and
not the law of God, is Paul’s whole argument here. The 17th verse shows
the covenant is the one with Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before
the law to Moses. There is not an intimation of the abolition of the law
of commandments. Here it is the law of Abraham and Moses. Therefore it is
right for the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath to demand of you to
prove a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day; and the
reason we demand it is, because we positively know you have none. You also
say that the Apostles availed themselves of the opportunity to preach to
the judaizing christians in their synagogues on the seventh day, at the
same time keeping up the christian solemnity and worship on the first day.
I say you cannot prove this. You cannot present a passage in the
scriptures that shows that the disciples ever met together for worship, in
the day time, on the first day of the week, and only once of an evening;
and not one word about that being a holy day or a day for them to worship,
but to break bread. But why do you want to prove this if all the
commandments are abolished? The fact is, as soon as you leave the law of
God, you are all adrift, with neither oar nor rudder, at the mercy of the
tide. Again, you say “the ministration of the law is done away, is
abolished.” That is just what we say. Suppose you had ceased your
ministration ten years ago, would that have abolished the Gospel? This is
your reasoning, and it is the best argument you and others bring for the
abolition of the commandments in 2d Cor. iii. There is nothing there but
the ministration abolished, which no more affects the law of God, than the
moving of your old sermons out of your house would affect the house.
Now will you just turn over your file to Nov. 4th, where you come out
against J. P. M. Peck, about the sanctuary. As I have twice presented my
view of the sanctuary’s being in the heavens, I shall not stop here, only
to say, that there is abundant bible proof for this view, and but one
place for it, where Jesus, the High Priest is. But the one you advocate is
first one thing and then another. Palestine, or Canaan, or Jerusalem, or
mountains about Jerusalem; Mount Zion, and generally, the whole world. The
reason for this is, because you have no proof of any certain place, after
you leave Paul, in Heb. viii: 2. But you say, “I deny that it has been any
thing like a general belief that the twenty-three hundred days ended in
’44. There were a portion of the adventists that embraced, for a while,
that theory. But they soon abandoned it, with the exception of a few, who
have followed anything but the word of God and sound reason; and they now
have no fellowship for, or connection with those who truly look for the
cleansing of the sanctuary, at the end of the days; and we have as little
fellowship for their teaching as they have for us and our view of the
plain word of God. We know enough of the effect of that theory that
teaches the 2300 days ended in ’44, and scores of Shakers can tell you
more even than we can.”
Out of the great mass of advent believers in ’44, I do not believe you
knew of twenty that did not think the days were ended in ’44. We will try
to show, by-and-by, who have followed sound reason; and who have got “the
plain word of God.” You say you “know enough of the effect of that theory
that teaches the 2300 days are ended.” Allow me to tell you that you do
not know so much about it as you think you do, or as you will wish you
had. You are as much afloat here as you are on the subject of the Sabbath
and commandments. That portion who abandoned the idea of the days being
ended, of which you boast, are of those that organized and entered the
state of the Laodocean church, “neither hot nor cold;” neither in one
position nor yet in another; “always learning and never coming to the
knowledge of (the present) truth.” The ending of the 2300 days was the
great burden of the advent teaching in ’43 and ’44; “then the sanctuary
shall be cleansed.” You will have it that this cannot be before the coming
of the Lord, and you see he may come at any time; yes, now, by the first
of January, as your Bible Advocate states. You have now heard something of
the character of this J. Weston. He would have us believe that he was so
full of the spirit of the Lord, that God had revealed to him that Jesus
would come the 24th of December, or by the 1st of January. All good—we
will publish it! What about the 2300 days, Br. W.? Oh, no matter, Jesus is
coming now. H. H. Gross has refuted this time, but look at _him_ last
spring; the 1335 days must end the 18th day of April, and the
resurrection, or they would not end under forty-five years. Well, he
confessed that he was wrong in ever believing that they had ended in ’44.
Come, then, where will they end here? Oh, somewhere a little while before
the 1335 days end in the spring of 1847. Well, time has passed on; out he
comes again and says the Lord will come in the spring of 1848. Where will
the 2300 and 1335 days end, friend Gross? Can’t say—that is, he don’t
say—neither does J. Weston, and he does not correct him for this; it is
only because the advent cannot be until spring. And here I will ask an
opinion—that there is not a man in the whole advent ranks—(it seems to me
that I will not even except you)—that can show that the Lord will come
this winter or next spring. H. H. Gross is just as much mistaken in his
calculation this coming spring, as he was the last. Now you may go on and
call us what it seems to you good, we are confident that you have not got
the present truth, neither have you had it since you have followed any
thing but “_the word of God and sound reason_.” And this is the main
reason why you cannot answer brother Fuller’s important questions on THE
OPEN BOOK OF REV. x: 2. It requires some one that has followed the truth,
the present truth, nearer than you have, to reply to such questions, and
_they_ as surely involve the days as a cry at midnight brought us to the
end of them. Do you not see how you are first blowing hot and then blowing
cold? Six weeks ago, you said you knew enough of the effect of that theory
that the _days_ are ended. You say “all will see by reading the article,
what are Br. F.’s views.” That is, he is one that we have no fellowship
for. But, you say, we hope that he and many others may be benefitted by a
careful and prayerful investigation of some of the many questions he has
asked. &c. &c. Now this is the right and only way to investigate. But if
some one undertakes to follow your advice by the scripture, it would not
amount to much, for we should expect to see you right out against them,
for those that have rejected plain scripture, connected with experience,
as you have, and ridiculed those who had faith in it, have but little hope
now, since you have become an editor. We deeply lamented that you should
have taken such a course; but we have seen since, that it required
something more than common moral courage, for a shepherd to remain with
the tried and tempted flock, when he sees that _all_ his fellow shepherds
were deserting them. The warnings you have had, have no doubt brought many
solemn convictions to yours and their minds, or else we should not find
you in this lukewarm state. Yes, you have been faithfully warned by your
old, firm friends, not to come out with your Advocate; you have heard
their voice, that two were enough to give the light on the doctrine of the
advent, and they had hard work to get along. But no, your paper was going
to take different ground, in some things! In one respect, it has shown
pretty clearly, as the scriptures fully demonstrate, that “the dead know
not any thing;” and allow me here to tell you, if you go on with your
no-law-of-God and no-commandment system, and continue to reject the clear
fulfillment of prophecy, in our past experience, you will as clearly prove
that you know but a very _little_ more. But after all you have said and
done, you are following hard on in the track—the same old deep-cut rut,
made by your predecessors. Pharaoh’s host like, the ruts so deep you can
neither back nor turn out; but on you drive after them, thinking, no
doubt, that you are going to accomplish something for God and his cause.
The only way that I can see for you to do that, will be, either to abandon
your load, or shift the tongue of your chariot on the opposite end, drive
back with all speed, and get into the highway of the Waymarks and high
heaps, that you so wilfully abandoned more than three years ago.
The Saviour’s admonition to the Philadelphia state of the church, which
was forming in ’43 and ’44, was to hold fast that which we had—and he
would “write upon us his new name.” This is what we are endeavoring to do;
and when we see you doing the opposite, we know you are wrong. You quote
Paul to the Hebrews, viii: 10, “Saith the Lord I will put my laws into
their mind and write them in their hearts.” Whose hearts? Answer—the house
of Israel; of course, all of God’s people. What is this done for?
Answer—that he may be our God and we may know him and be his people. Can
you tell your no-law no-commandment readers which law of God Paul meant?
Whether it was the one you say he abolished in Col., Gal., Cor. and
Romans, or was it another code of laws which he had made for our purpose,
and then hid them from us. If you know in what book, or chapter, or verse
they are in the bible, I beseech you to let us know immediately, for I see
by John’s visions in the Rev. that in the last days there certainly will
be a company keeping them, and the Devil will persecute them for it; but
they will eventually be saved, and enter the city. Rev. xii: 17; xiv: 12;
xxii: 14. And finally, if you cannot find any others than those which God
gave by his own mouth and wrote with his own finger on Mount Sinai, more
than 3300 years since, the same which Jesus confirmed to us more than 1800
years ago with his Gospel, won’t you make that known by publicly
confessing that it is impossible for you to tell what other object God had
in view than our keeping these same laws; and that you had, contrary to
the direct teachings of God, derided both his law and his willing,
obedient children. Don’t tell us that this law is the “_law_ of _Christ_
or the _law_ of _grace_,” or any other name unless you can show us how
many commandments they contain, because James has told us “if we fail in
one we are guilty of the whole.” Jesus never gave but one commandment.
-------------------------------------
P. S. As I predicted on your second page, J. Turner’s piece has come. The
_child_ is fairly born, and you have fallen in love with it. Now brethren,
just haul down all your other colors, J. Turner has got the very thing!
The first day of the week is the seventh-day Sabbath! We have always been
right, but we never knew it till now! Thanks to J. Turner for confounding
the whole world, and now no more about this much vexed question! “We shall
fill our paper mostly with other matter for the future.” The wind has
favored us and we have made a first rate tack to windward, and now we can
breathe much freer seeing our enemies are under our lee. Hear what he
says? “We supposed and still do suppose that Barnabas had reference to a
class well known to the adventists in Connecticut and Massachusetts, who
went into the shut door, and staid in, and almost every other door but the
true one into the sheepfold, and _many_ of which became great sticklers
for the seventh day.” &c. Now he goes on and speaks in high praise of
those who have been writing for the Sabbath—_they_ are consistent
Christians, &c. And now, says he, “we must all be _exceedingly_ careful
how we _write_ and _speak_; the enemy seeks to devour us, and one of his
most artful wiles is to divide the saints by _dark insinuations_, _evil
speaking_, and _jealousies_,” &c.—See Bible Advocate, Dec. 30th, p. 160.
Why this caution after the above unsparing epithets; are you afraid that
some of these misguided, mistaken people will get into your open door? If
they should happen to, and confess that they were wrong in believing in
the shut door, no matter how many others they had been guilty of entering
into what you call almost every door, they would immediately become
consistent Christians! Out of hundreds who have crawled into your open
door and made such confessions, causing the hypocrites and unbelievers to
rejoice, and the hearts of the righteous to be sad, &c., I will just name
a few: J. and C. Pearsons, F. G. Brown, of wonderful memory; and now a few
Sabbath keepers: W. M. Ingham, John Howell, of vascillating memory, and J.
Turner, your fellow laborer. Well, you are not so far to windward as you
think for; here comes another head flaw, that will drive you down on that
lee shore again, where you may see the awful havoc you have made of those
who are following in your wake. See them dashing there upon the rocks and
into those overwhelming breakers! Your whirlwind of doctrine has utterly
dismantled them, and their cry for help is unavailing! and unless you put
forth some more strenuous efforts to avoid these dangerous seas, you will
never get off from this lee shore, while under these deceitful and
flattering winds of doctrine.
Again he says—“We take the liberty to add, that Br. T.’s article is
IRREFUTABLE, and that we are now observing the Sabbath of the Lord our
God, and not the Jewish, nor a Pagan Sabbath.” Where is he now? Does he
mean that J. T.’s Sabbath is “the Sabbath of the Lord our God?” He has
always insisted, in his former articles, that “the Sabbath of the Lord our
God,” _was_ the Jewish Sabbath. There is but one named in the bible. If
this what he calls “the plain word of the Lord,” I doubt whether any one
will understand him.
He says further—“If Friday was the sixth day—every transaction on the day
of our Lord’s crucifixion is involved in utter confusion—and the law of
types in a like failure, and makes it an impossibility for the Sabbath of
the Lord our God to be kept the next day, for this [_wise_] reason, that
it was a feast day”! and quotes John xix: 31, again and again, for
positive proof. I wonder if he can tell how, and when, and where the Jews
lost that day, since the crucifixion, and where is the history to show
that they did really pass over the seventh-day Sabbath and keep the first
day for the Sabbath? I have already answered this in J. Turner’s article;
there you will see the reason why John called this “an high day.” Now, as
he has spoken of the law of types, I ask where is the chapter and verse in
the bible in which the Jews were ever forbidden to hold a feast, when it
fell on the seventh-day Sabbath? for, as I before stated, this always did
occur every year. Besides this Jewish feast was an holy convocation; no
servile work was to be done on this day. This was always continued seven
days, and the last day was like the first. Lev. xxiii: 6-8. Now then, all
that they did on these feast Sabbaths, was to worship God by their
offerings. You see that on God’s holy seventh-day Sabbath, [see J. T.’s
article,] they always offered four lambs; therefore, whenever the other
Sabbaths, or holy convocations fell on the seventh day, they were equally
observed, as is positively proved by the direction of God in the 37th and
38th verses of this same chapter, “every thing upon his day besides the
Sabbaths of the Lord,” &c. Now see—here are seven holy convocations,
Sabbath feasts named in this chapter, which the Jews were required to keep
besides the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, and when their feasts fell on the
holy Sabbath of the Lord, all the extra labor was in offering to God the
extra bullocks, lambs &c. Do let me entreat you, before you further expose
yourself, to read in connection with this, the twenty-eighth and
twenty-ninth chapter of Numbers, for here you will find every identical
thing specified: therefore, when one of these seven holy convocation days
of every year came on the weekly Sabbath, it was of more importance,
inasmuch that they had more offerings to make to God, and hence John or
any one else, might call it “an high day;” but none the less holy, any
more than for us, instead of assembling together on the Sabbath, in our
several places for worship, to have a general conference meeting in
Boston, to continue over the Sabbath.
But J. Turner, instead of overthrowing history, as he promised he should,
is exulting, and says, “unless I utterly misapprehend the technical
veracity of Christ and his apostles, _I have the argument_ by their
concurrent testimony.” In his Note 3, he says, “But if the day that
followed the crucifixion was the seventh-day Sabbath, it could not be said
that the Sabbath drew on, for it was even then _began_. It commenced at
evening, at the same time the pascal lamb was slain in the law, at which
time according to the record, Jesus expired.”
Now, I say, this is not true, and he or the editor who published it, knows
it to be so. I presume that both of them have stated in their preaching,
again and again, that Jesus expired on the cross at the ninth hour, as the
Evangelists testify, which was at three o’clock in the afternoon, and
three hours before the Sabbath commenced. If he can assert such positive
falsehoods as these, and others which I have stated, to prove what never
has, nor never will take place, and at the same time have multitudes
crying “amen!” “that’s true!” &c., it is no wonder he can “set _as calm as
heaven_!”
But I have one other proof to offer, which will destroy their whole
foundation. I had overlooked it in the multitude of texts that had come up
here, but God in answer to our prayers, both in our closet and at
meetings, for wisdom to guide us in giving the _present truth_ to the
little flock in this work, at this important crisis, has so directed that
I may have it in time to put into this Postscript, just as it is going to
press. [I could not see before why it was that the printer could not get
his promised help, in order to proceed faster with this work. I see it
now—it is all in God’s own wise way. He was not willing, (as it now
appears to me,) that my work should come out to check or disturb you,
until you began to settle somewhere on this subject.] The proof then, I
transcribe from a letter received from Br. JAMES WHITE, dated Topsham, Me.
January 2d, 1848. Here it is:
“The plain, simple truth in regard to the holy Sabbath flows out
from the blessed bible in one clear, strait channel; while
erroneous views are fated to run crooked and devour themselves. I
think that those who are not fully settled as to what day of the
week is the seventh or Sabbath, would do well to refer to the
type, in Lev. xxii: 5-21. Here are three types which were
fulfilled at the time of the first advent. Every adventist in the
land once believed that these types were exactly fulfilled as to
time. The paschal lamb was slain on the 14th day of the first
month. So was Jesus crucified on the 14th day of the first month.
The handful of the first fruits of the harvest was waved before
the Lord on the 16th of the first month; so was Jesus the first
fruits of the resurrection, raised from the tomb the 16th of the
first month. [See 1st Cor. xv: 20.] Now if the resurrection day,
which was the first day of the week, was the 16th of the first
month, then it follows that the 14th of the first month when Jesus
was crucified, which was Friday, was the sixth day of the week;
Saturday, the seventh day or Sabbath, and Sunday, the first day of
the week.
“St. Paul preached that Christ would rise the third day, according
to the scriptures. He certainly could refer to no other scripture
but the type. Our Lord, while preaching the resurrection to the
two, on their way to Emmeas, began at Moses. So we are not on
forbidden ground when we go there also, to prove that he arose on
the third day.—See Luke xxiv: 27, 44-46. Jesus came not to break,
but to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law—therefore he arose
Sunday, the 16th day of the first month, which harmonizes with the
joint testimony of the Apostles and Christ himself, that he arose
on the third day.”
Other brethren, (in reference to J. Turner’s article,) from Canandaigua,
N. Y. and Dorchester, Mass. have also, about this same time, referred us
to this strong hold, for which we thank them and praise the Lord for this
light, that forever settles the question. A most striking proof of the
_unity_ of the saints in their patience, (Rev. xiv: 12,) no matter where
located, though hundreds and thousands of miles apart, they are one on
this question. This is as we now understand the Sabbath of the Lord our
God, to be the rallying point of all those who are truly looking for the
speedy coming of Jesus. Whosoever, therefore, shall attempt to destroy or
_displace_ God’s holy Sabbath, will have to pass the examination of the
host. Paul to the Corinthians, 5th chapter and seventh verse, says, “For
even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” How? Answer—expired on
Friday, the 14th day of the first month, at 3 o’clock, P. M., in exact
fulfillment of the type by Moses, in Exo. xii: 6, 11-14, continued for
1670 years. He rested from _all_ his works only one twenty-four hour day,
and that was God’s holy day. Paul tells the Romans that “he was raised
again for our justification.” iv: 25; and the Corinthians “that he is
risen and become the first fruits of them that slept.” 1st Cor. xv: 20;
and Col. i: 18, “first born from the dead.” Again, “should be the _first_
that should rise from the dead.” Acts xxvi: 23. John says, “The first
begotten of the dead.” He arose on Sunday morning, the first day of the
week, before sunrise—say about 5 A. M.—having been dead about thirty-eight
hours. Thus he fulfilled the type in Lev. xxiii: 10-11 verses—the first
fruits of the harvest, the handful of barley, called the wafe sheaf, which
was waved by the priest, with the offering of a lamb, [emblem of Christ,]
as first fruits of the resurrection, on the morrow after the Sabbath—the
16th of the first month—the Sabbath, or feast day, always being on the
15th of the same month. Then, from the 14th, at 3 P. M. to the 16th, at
about 6 P. M. is but thirty-eight hours, _two_ whole nights, (not three,)
one whole day, a part of Friday and a part of Sunday. “Thus it behoved
Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the _third day_.” This is his
own testimony a few hours after his resurrection; also a few hours after
the offering of the wafe sheaf. If this can be overthrown then can also
the time of his crucifixion. The chaotic confusion that you would make
about this great feast day which always followed the passover, is answered
here. It so happened in the order of time to come on God’s holy Sabbath;
and that God so ordered it that Christ should rest from all his works on
his holy day, was without doubt, to fulfill some glorious event yet to
come.
Now, friend Timothy, if you will not reverence God’s holy Sabbath and
commandments according to the clear precept, do you let them alone, if you
do not want a worse thing to befal you, for just so sure as you fight
against them they will destroy you. This beating the air, is some like
daubing with untempered mortar; you cannot make any of it stay put. If I
were in your place, I should a great deal rather have been fast asleep
than to be caught in such heaven-daring business—fighting against God!
This looks like “_following anything but _‘the word of God and sound
reason.’”
During ’43 and ’44, Dowling, Stewart, Colver, Chase, Bush and others, took
their stand against William Miller and his brethren, to demolish Daniel’s
vision of the 2300 days. You remember that no two of these agreed, but
each started upon a theory of his own; but God’s children were united and
on the one point, and therefore triumphed over them all. Now you leading
men are acting the drama over again, with regard to the Sabbath and
commandments of God. See how it looks; William Miller believes the first
day is the Sabbath; J. V. Himes believes in selecting any day, just as you
are persuaded, but still _calls the first the Sabbath_; Joseph Marsh is
not particular, don’t believe there is either law, Sabbath or
commandments—says we are under the law of grace; but still he will have
it, that Sunday is the Sabbath! you say the first day is the seventh of
the Lord our God, but it is not the Jewish Sabbath,—that is; the one which
is in the decalogue. It is something new—I don’t understand you; don’t
think you can make your brethren understand it, either. J. Turner says the
first day is the true seventh-day Sabbath! D. B. Wait says the
commandments are right, but the first day is the true seventh-day.
Barnabas says “the Jews were right in killing our Lord for a notorious
Sabbath breaker, if he did not abolish all the law when he commenced his
ministry,” three years before he abolished Moses’ law. Up starts another
mighty man, G. Needham, and says God told him that the commandments were
all abolished in 2d Corinthians, chapter 3d. And a great portion of your
flattering readers are flying like Mother Cary’s Chickens(2) to get into
your WAKE to pick up the crumbs! Don’t smile, gentle reader, the picture
is not overdrawn. These are some of the principal leaders in the second
advent; they will tell you to your face that they have renounced all
sectarian creeds and formulas, and believe every word of God. Now the
“_great sticklers for the seventh day_,” are all united on the Sabbath and
commandments; they believe God, if they keep his Sabbath, that they shall
be sanctified and ride upon the high places of the earth.—Ezekiel and
Isaiah. They believe Jesus, that the law and the prophets hang upon the
commandments, and that the keeping of them will give eternal life and
great esteem in the reign of heaven. This carries them beyond the Jewish,
Gospel, and all other dispensations. See also Rev. xxii: 14. They believe
the holy Apostles, Paul, John and James—that “the law is holy, and the
commandments holy, just and good.” “Here are they [Jan. 1848] that keep
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. xiv: 12. “If we keep
the whole law and yet offend in one point, we are guilty of all.” They
feel perfectly secure in following such leaders, and they understand that
though you be ever so moral in regard to the nine commandments, you fail
in the fourth, the Sabbath. They believe this to be the “plain word of the
Lord,” and on this Sabbath question they will all be united, waiting for
Jesus. And just so sure as the first class of expositors were overthrown
by rejecting the sure word, just so sure you will be overwhelmed in utter
confusion that oppose God’s holy Sabbath and commandments, and your case
is now hanging in awful suspense. O Lord, let the clear light shine.
A word more—as your wonderful prototype has also threatened to unsettle
the world with respect to the history of the seventh-day Sabbath. If he
proceeds with it as he has with the unerring word of God, our minds will
have to be remodelled, to believe with him. If any of the little flock
feel desirous of spending an hour in looking into this subject, I would
recommend them to send to the New York Sabbath Tract Society, and purchase
Sabbath tract No. 4, vol. 1, 48 pages. This will save the labor of poring
over Roman and English history, or of following the sophistical arguments
of the blind leading the blind. Much reliance is placed upon the history
of the “early fathers,” so called, who succeeded the Apostles, to settle
the question. We ought to remember that these were uninspired men, and we
do not know even so much about their characters, as we do of the
uninspired fathers of the last century, whose teaching led us all into
Babylon. If the true history of the advent doctrine from 1842 to the
autumn of 1844, had, with the subsequent events in our history up to 1848,
been published 1800 years ago from the Advent Heralds, and their
conductors had been called the fathers—it would have puzzled all the wise
heads in Christendom, in this age, to have expounded their meaning; for we
see it requires all the energies of the human mind to trace their crooked
tracks, even when right before us. For this reason, I have said but little
about history; my whole and entire reliance being upon the inspired word
of the living God. This, we are told, will make us “_perfect_ and
_entire_—_wanting nothing_.”—2d Tim. iii: 17.
If what I have and may here present in this work will not stand the test
of what we have seen and felt ourselves—fulfilling the clear word of God
in these last days, then I shall fail in my object of comforting and
strengthening the flock of God. I fully believe in history, when all
deductions are fully allowed.