Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists

MISREPRESENTATIONS OF OUR POSITION

IN glancing through what Eld. Canright has written against what he claims constitutes the belief of S.D. Adventists, we have been surprised and pained to see how he perverts and garbles the testimony he quotes, and misrepresents our positions in direct contradiction of what he has himself written and spoken a thousand times while with us. We have not space here to notice all the instances of this kind, nor is it necessary that we should do so. A few will answer as specimens of the whole, and show the reader the nature of the work he is doing. We call attention to a few as we chance to meet them in his writings. RCASDA 30.2

The first one we will notice is found on p.6 of “Jewish Sabbath Abolished.” Referring to the views set forth in the “History of the Sabbath,” that there were in the Jewish system three annual feasts, and connected with these feasts seven annual sabbath, he says:— RCASDA 30.3

“So it is not correct to speak of ‘the annual sabbaths.’ much less to say there were seven of them. There was just one, and no more, and this one was included in the annual feast days. This even Eld. Andrews confesses. He says, ‘The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts.’-History of the Sabbath, p.86.” RCASDA 30.4

If the reader will take the trouble to look at the “History of the Sabbath,” and see for himself what Eld. Andrews does teach, he will find he makes no such “confession” as Eld. C. charges him with. Chapter 7 of the work referred to is devoted to an examination of “The Feasts, New Moons, and Sabbaths of the Hebrews.” It opens as follows:— RCASDA 31.1

“We have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the books of Moses. A brief survey of the Jewish festivals is necessary to a complete view of the subject before us. Of these there were three: the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles: each new moon, that is, the first day of each month throughout the year; then there were seven annual sabbaths, namely. 1. The first day of unleavened bread; 2. The seventh day of that feast; 3. The day of Pentecost; 4. The first day of the seventh month; 5. The tenth day of that month; 6. The fifteenth day of that month; 7. The twenty-second of that month.” — Hist. Sab., pp.82,83. On p.86 he says: “The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, and could have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been instituted.” RCASDA 31.2

This the reader will see is very different from the way Eld. C. represents it. Read again, “This one [10th of 7th month] was included in the annual feast days. This, even Eld. Andrews confesses.” Eld. Andrews confesses no such thing. He says there were three feasts, and the annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, not “included in the annual feast days,” as Eld. C. with notable lack of accuracy makes him say. The facts are these: There were three feasts, two of them covering a period of days; the passover, seven days, the feast of tabernacles, seven days, followed by another day of rest and holy convocation. In the passover the first and seventh days were sabbaths, that on, days in which no servile work was done, and a holy convocation was held. In the feast of tabernacles the first and eighth days were sabbaths of the same kind. But the time intervening between these sabbaths, the five in the passover and the six in the feast of tabernacles, all belonged to the feast; for the feast covered the whole period. Each one of these days was a feast day, a heorte (eorhte), but not a sabbath. But the first and last days of these feasts were more than mere feast days; they were sabbaths. Eld. Andrews is careful, on p.139 of his “History,” to draw the distinction between the feast day (eorhte) which Paul calls the holy day in Colossians 2:16, and the sabbath days belonging to the same feast; and while he says that the annual sabbaths were part and parcel of the feast, as indeed they were, he does not say that they were included in the feast days. RCASDA 31.3

We can hardly restrain our pen from entering into an examination of Eld. Canright’s position on these annual festivals, and giving a full exposition of Colossians 2:16, which has suddenly become such a mountain before him, and which he thinks troubles us so greatly. But this does not come within the scope of this paper; and there is not space to devote to it here. RCASDA 32.1

He sets forth Elds. T.M. Preble and J.B. Cook, who kept the Sabbath a brief period and then gave it up, as the real fathers and founders of the present Seventh-day Adventist movement; which he thinks makes a bad showing for the movement. It would make these men smile to think they were the founders of the S.D.A. movement. So far as Adventists’ embracing the Sabbath is concerned, other Adventist commenced its observance in advance of them. But no idea of this movement then existed, and the connection of the Sabbath reform with prophecy was not then discerned. Andrews’s “History of the Sabbath” is quoted in proof of the foregoing statement; but Andrews shows how they regarded it of no practical importance, and as a very natural consequence soon ceased to keep it. Not till worthier and more stable men took hold of it did this movement really begin. RCASDA 32.2

He says again: “They claim that it is an actual historical fact that at a certain time about 500 years after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday.” A bare-faced misrepresentation. See the lectures by D.M.C. himself on the point, in the spring of 1885, in which he explains the matter very differently, according to our faith which he then held. That the reader may see for himself, we quote a few paragraphs [“Tabernacle Lectures,” Lecture Ten, p.76]:— RCASDA 32.3

“We have shown, said he, during the past two or three evenings, that the seventh day was God’s original Sabbath; that it was kept as such from the beginning, and that there is no Bible authority for a change. Last evening we examined every text in the New Testament which is even hinted at as authority for the change,and found nothing to support it. Yet there has been a change. God’s people once kept the seventh day, and now nearly all Christendom are doing otherwise. When and where was the change made? RCASDA 32.4

“Let me call your attention again to the prophecy in Daniel 7:25, which has been very clearly shown in these lectures to refer to an apostate power, called by Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2, ‘the man of sin,’ and recognized by all Protestants as the Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament writers recognize the fact that very early in the Christian era there was to be a falling away from the true faith. RCASDA 33.1

“In Acts 20:29, Paul says, to the elders of Ephesus, that after he left them grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock, and that even of their own selves men should arise, and draw people away from the truth. 1 John 4:3 speaks of the spirit of antichrist as even then already in the world, while Paul,in 2 thess.2, before referred to, states that the falling away, or apostasy (Greek), had already commenced its work, even right in the bosom of the apostolic church. RCASDA 33.2

“Now it is a very common error to suppose that a practice which is very old, and can be traced back to somewhere near the apostolic church, must be correct. But this is an evident mistake, for apostasy commenced so early that there is no safety in accepting tradition on any subject. Our only safety is the Scriptures themselves. Protestants claim to rely wholly on this authority, leaving tradition to Catholics; and yet, on this subject, as well as some others, they follow Rome, because the Bible gives them no help. RCASDA 33.3

“Now, what was to be the special work of this apostate power? The prophecy in Daniel 7:25 shows that his efforts were to be directed against the Most High,-he would speak great words against the Most High, wear out the saints of the laws of the Most High, and think to change times and laws, evidently the laws of the Most High, also, as the change of human laws would not be worthy of notice in prophecy, nor peculiar to this power. RCASDA 33.4

“The law of God [pointing to the ten commandments] is recognized as his rule of action for man. Nine of these precepts are acknowledged by all Christians to be binding. The other is in dispute, and strangely enough it is the only one that has time in it. The first three and last six are entirely silent on the subject of time, but the fourth is based upon it, and its obligation rests entirely in time and its correct recognition. The prophecy asserts that this apostate power thinks to change times: and when we seek for the fulfillment, we find that power claiming openly to have done the very thing predicted, as proved by the extracts read to you by Eld. Butler on this subject. RCASDA 33.5

“The dominion of that power was 1260 years. In Revelation 12 we have a prophecy which shows that the church would be in a ‘wilderness’ state 1260 years, and when it emerges from that condition it reforms itself, and ‘keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,’ that being a characteristic of the remnant, or last end, of the church. RCASDA 34.1

“Now the question arises, just when did the practice of Sunday-keeping commence? No one can tell exactly. Why? if the change had been made by divine authority, we could put our finger on the exact point, and show where it was done. But, like all error, its introduction was gradual. You cannot follow a river into the ocean, and put your finger down and say, There, just at that spot the fresh water stops and the salt water begins; neither can you tell where Sabbath-keeping stopped and Sunday observance began, as there was a gradual mingling of truth and error. RCASDA 34.2

“You will hear men say with all confidence that, while the seventh day was kept to the crucifixion, the practice of the church since then has been unanimous in keeping the first day. I do not see how a man can be honest and say this, unless he is very ignorant, as the most trustworthy historians, themselves Sunday-keeping, too, testify to the contrary. RCASDA 34.3

“Mr. Morer says: ‘The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons.’ Prof. Brerewood, in his treatise p.77, says: “The Sabbath of the seventh day was religiously observed in the east church three hundred years after our Saviour’s passion. That church being a great part of Christendom, and having the apostle’s doctrine and example, would have been restrained if it had been deadly.’ “ RCASDA 34.4

“Dr. John Ley, in ‘Sunday Sabbath,’ p.163, says: ‘From the apostles’ time until the Council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jewish Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors.’ RCASDA 34.5

“Prof. Stuart, of Andover, himself a Sunday-keeper and a recognized evangelical author and teacher, in his Appendix to ‘Gurney’s History of the Sabbath,’ p,115, says: “The practice of it [keeping the Sabbath,] was continued by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christendom.’ RCASDA 34.6

“The historian Socrates [book 5, chap. 22] says: ‘For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome refuse to do so,’ We see here that Rome was among the first to forsake God’s Sabbath, and the Romish Church was the one that finally became the great apostate. RCASDA 35.1

“Dr. Neander, in ‘Church History,’ p,168, says: ‘The festival Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance; and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine commandment in this respect-far from them, and from the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.’ RCASDA 35.2

“Dr Neander here calls Sunday a festival, and a human ordinance. When it was introduced, it did not come in as a Sabbath. Look at the word itself, ‘Sunday.’ Webster defines it as ‘so called, because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun;’ and the North British Review styles it ‘the wild solar holiday of all pagan times.’ Now, how did it creep into the church? I’ll tell you how. When the early Christians evangelized the heathen tribes, they would go to the head, or chief, and labor with him to convince him of the superiority of the Christian religion. If he became convinced, he would command his entire tribe to be baptized. They were pagans, and had kept Sunday, as a festival in honor of one of their gods, the sun; and when they outwardly accepted Christianity, they kept up their observance of Sunday, which gradually supplanted the Lord’s Sabbath. And while some of these might have been soundly converted, there is evidence to show that though the Sabbath was kept, Sunday was also observed as a kind of holiday, but with no idea of sacredness attached to it. RCASDA 35.3

“Kitto, the historian, says: ‘Though in later times we find considerable reference of a sort of consecration of the day, it does not seem at any period of the ancient church to have assumed the form of such an observance.... Chrysostom [A.D. 360] concludes one of his homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupation.’ How would our modern church-members think they were keeping Sunday, to go home from church and go to carpenter or blacksmith work, or building stone wall? And yet they tell us they are keeping Sunday as the primitive Christians did. RCASDA 35.4

“Bishop Jeremy Taylor (book 2, ch.2) says: ‘The primitive Christians did all manner of work upon the Lord’s day [meaning Sunday], even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none.’ RCASDA 36.1

“The first command for Sunday-keeping was the decree of Constantine, A.D. 321: ‘Let all the judges and towns-people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture.’ Speaking of the effect of this decree concerning the first day of the week, the historian Mosheim says that in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, [it was] observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.’ RCASDA 36.2

“And so we might trace the history down through the first centuries. The observance of Sunday, introduced as a holiday, or festival, gradually assumed more importance as a rival of God’s Sabbath, until, by the influx of half converted pagans into the church, bringing with them their solar holiday, it began to supplant its divinely appointed rival. The Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, decreed the observance of Sunday, and anathematized the keeping of the Sabbath. From that time on, the two days seem to have been struggling for the supremacy. The claim of the Sabbath being scriptural, and that of Sunday being a matter of custom or convenience, the ascendancy seems to have been given according as conscience or policy willed. It was not until the Council of Orleans, A.D. 538, that Sunday labor in the country was prohibited, and thus, as Dr. Paley remarked, it became ‘an institution of the church,’ and of that church into whose hands the saints, times, and laws were to be given for 1260 years; and it may be something more than a coincidence that A.D. 538 was the beginning of that period.” RCASDA 36.3

Such is the language of Eld. C. himself upon this point in 1885. Upon the question of the candor of a person who can make such an assertion as first above quoted, only two years after he had himself explained the point in the lecture as above given, we make no comments. We leave the reader to judge for himself. RCASDA 36.4

On the change of the Sabbath he says: “But the only proof offered is simply quotations from Catholic Catechisms.” We ask the reader to peruse any of the works published by S.D. Adventists on this subject, and see if this is the “only proof” we have to offer. When he has done this he will be as much astonished as we are at such an utterance. It is refuted also by Eld. C.’s own words quoted above. RCASDA 36.5

Eld. C. quotes from “The Complete Testimony of the Fathers” very unfairly, as a few extracts will show. In putting forth a historical argument to show that Sunday was called the Lord’s day and was observed as a sacred day by the Christian church immediately after the days of the apostles, he says:— RCASDA 37.1

“The Lord’s day, then, is the day belonging to the Lord Jesus, as ‘he is Lord of all’ (Acts 10:36), and ‘Head over all things’ (Ephesians 1:22) in the gospel. We shall find this fact abundantly confirmed in the Fathers. I now quote from ‘The Complete Testimony of the Fathers,’ by Eld. Andrews:— RCASDA 37.2

” ‘Justin’s “Apology” was written at Rome about the year 140.’ ‘He is the first person after the sacred writers that mentions the first day, and this at a distance of only forty-four years from the date of John’s vision upon Patmos.’ It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in the doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treats it with contempt.’ Pages 33,36. RCASDA 37.3

“This is the confession which even the historian of the Seventh-day Adventists is compelled to make. The Jewish Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians within forty-four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is proved by the testimony of the very first Christian writer who mentions the first day after the apostles. Does Eld. Andrews question the genuineness or truthfulness of this statement? — Not at all.” RCASDA 37.4

We have given these three paragraphs in full, that the reader may be able to see fully how Eld. C. can treat the writings of others to suit his purpose. We have expressed surprise at his efforts to pervert and garble testimony. “Garble” is defined to mean, “to pick out or select such parts as may serve a purpose.” — Webster. This quotation from “The Testimony of the Fathers” is made, remember, to prove that the Sabbath was discarded, and that Sunday was recognized as the Lord’s day by the Christians of that early time; and now let us see what Eld. Andrews does really say:— RCASDA 37.5

“‘Justin’s Apology’ was written at Rome about the year 140 A.D. His ‘Dialogue with Trypho the Jew’ was written some years later. In searching his works we shall see how much greater progress apostasy had made at Rome than in the countries where those lived whose writings we have been examining.” RCASDA 38.1

Thus Eld. Andrews’s first reference to Justin is to show that Rome was far in advance of other bodies on the course of apostasy, and that Justin was himself a leader in that work. In proof of this he introduces testimony that he treated God’s Sabbath with contempt, denied its origin at creation, taunted the Jews that it was given to them because of their wickedness, and denied the perpetuity of the ten commandments. Pages 33,34. As to the next sentence in Eld. C.’s quotation, let us give it entire from Eld. Andrews:— RCASDA 38.2

“And it is worthy of notice that though first-day writers assert that ‘Lord’s day’ was the familiar title of the first day of the week in the time of the Apocalypse, yet Justin, who is the first person after the sacred writers that mentions the first day, and this at a distance of only 44 years from the date of John’s vision upon Patmos, does not call it by that title, but by the name it bore as a heathen festival. If it be said that the term was omitted because he was addressing a heathen emperor [just what Canright does now say], there still remains the fact that he mentions the day quite a number of times in his ‘Dialogue with Trypho,’ and yet never calls it ‘Lord’s day,’ nor indeed does he call it by any name implying sacredness.” RCASDA 38.3

This was written to show that Justin neither called Sunday the Lord’s day nor regarded it as such; but all of it which proves this, Eld. C. carefully omits, and takes out a little slice from one part of it, so far as it does not seem to contradict the point he is attempting to prove; namely, that Justin did regard Sunday as the Lord’s day. And then Eld. Andrews is represented as being obliged to “confess” that the “Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians [a sweeping statement, embracing all Christians] within forty-four years of the death of the last apostle; “when all he says is that Justin and a few who held with him in Rome, had turned against the Sabbath, because they were so fast becoming apostates! RCASDA 38.4

The quotation given from Justin on pp. 34,35 (“Testimony of the Fathers”), about meeting together on “the day called Sunday,” etc., Eld. C. gives in full to show that Justin did regard Sunday as the Lord’s day, though he gives it no such name, nor any title of sacredness. But on p. 37 Eld. A. gives a quotation from Justin’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” which shows that he regarded all days alike. He calls the gospel “the new law,” and says:— RCASDA 38.5

“The new law requires you to keep the perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.” RCASDA 39.1

Upon which Eld. Andrews remarks: “This language plainly implies that Justin held all days alike, and did not observe any one day as a day of abstinence from labor.” Yet the attempt is made by these misrepresentations to wheel Justin in as a witness for Sunday-keeping. RCASDA 39.2

Most astonishing to relate, Eld. C. quotes the epistle of Barnabas in favor of his position. Now he well knows that every critic pronounces that so-called epistle the work of a Jew of mean abilities and an absolute forgery. Yet, when reviewing Eld. Andrews in his notice of this work, he says:— RCASDA 39.3

“They [the early Fathers] lived early enough to have converse with the apostles themselves, while he [Eld. Andrews] lived eighteen hundred years later! Which would be apt to know best?” RCASDA 39.4

Yes; but here is a man who claims to be a Father who was not; a man who was a fraud, an impostor, a forger. The question is, What do the Scriptures teach? and we have the Scriptures as fully as he. Now we ask, Who would be apt to give us the best exposition of Scripture? an old forger of the second century who wrote things too silly to be repeated, and too shameful to quote? or a Christian scholar of the nineteenth? It will take no reader a great while to answer. Eld. Canright can take the forger if he prefers. RCASDA 39.5

In his fourth article in the Advocate, he says: “Let us see what Seventh-day Adventists say upon the sin of Sunday-keeping: ‘All who keep the first day for the Sabbath are pope’s Sunday-keepers, and God’s Sabbath-breakers.’— History of the Sabbath, p.502.” RCASDA 39.6

The “History of the Sabbath” never said this, as Eld. C. affirms. It was not said by Seventh-day Adventists, as he declares. It is simply a quotation from T.M. Preble, which Eld. Andrews presents to show how his mind was led as he began to publish upon this question. The whole extract reads as follows, as quoted from the Hope of Israel of Feb. 22, 1845:— RCASDA 40.1

“Thus we see Daniel 7:25 fulfilled, the little horn changing ‘times and laws.’ Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day for the Sabbath are pope’s Sunday-keepers, and God’s Sabbath-breakers.” RCASDA 40.2

Were Eld. Andrews alive to deal with such perversions of his work as they deserve, it would not seem quite so bad. But a due reverence for his memory demands that such things be not left to pass wholly unnoticed. RCASDA 40.3

Here is another: “Sunday-keeping ‘is in reality one of the most enormous of all errors.’” This purports to be taken from “‘Marvel of Nations,’ by U. Smith, p. 181.” If the reader will turn to the page and read, instead of the sentiment here expressed, he will find the following:— RCASDA 40.4

“‘But,’ says one, ‘I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath.’ A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they should, for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such persons for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is in reality one of the most enormous of all errors.” RCASDA 40.5

The reader can draw his own conclusions. RCASDA 40.6

His fifth article must have been very edifying reading to the subscribers of the Advocate, being composed mostly of historical extracts from a work published by S.D. Adventists themselves more than twenty years ago, showing that there have been Sabbath-keepers all through the Christian age, and that God has never left himself without witnesses to this ancient truth. And now comes one of the grossest attempts at perversion that can well be conceived. He asserts that we claim that the light and truth on the Sabbath question had never been given to the world before it was set forth by this people. We will let him express it in his own words:— RCASDA 40.7

“This confession of their champion writer upsets one of the main arguments of the Seventh-day Adventists. They hold that the light on this Sabbath question was reserved in the special providence of God, to be brought out as a test in this last generation. Thus Mrs. White claims to have been shown this by the Lord in vision: ‘I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished, and he had passed within the second vail; therefore, Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened in the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished at the seventh month in 1844, and had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened.’ — Experience and Views, p.25. RCASDA 40.8

“Now, the stubborn facts of history, even as presented in their own ‘History of the Sabbath,’ show that this statement is not true; for substantially the same arguments which Sabbatarians are now giving to the world have been given over and over again by Sabbatarians for ages in the past. Yet nearly all who are led into keeping the seventh day, are led there with the idea that this is a new truth to which the attention of the church and the world has never been called before since the early apostasy in the church.” “What, then, becomes of the claim that this is a new truth and the light upon it has never been given before?” And yet this is a new question, come up in our day, upon which the light has never been given before.” And yet Mrs. White says that nobody has had the light on this Sabbath question till after 1844!” “In the ignorance and simplicity of my youth, when I was ensnared into keeping the seventh day, I knew nothing of these historical facts about these numerous attempts in the past to resurrect that day. And it is so with those who are being led into it now. They honestly think that it is a brand new truth, and the grandest movement ever inaugurated in religious reform!” Yet it is now claimed that the world never had the light on the Sabbath question till Seventh-day Adventists rose up to give it. In the light of the above facts, what a modest claim that is!” RCASDA 41.1

We have given these extracts at length to show how much he makes of this point. Now, will some one kindly harmonize these assertions with the fact that this people published, and for twenty years have been pushing the sale of, the very book from which the historical extracts are taken which show that the Sabbath has been kept and more or less agitated all through this age? Is it possible that the whole body have been as stupid as he tries to represent himself as being? One of the grandest facts we have to present is that God has always had witnesses to his holy Sabbath from the days of Adam till now; but that does not preclude a special movement of reform upon the subject in the last days. And the one single, simple thing meant by calling this “new light,” “new truth,” “Sabbath reform,” etc., is the connection of the Sabbath truth with prophecy and the work of the Sanctuary in heaven; and this light the world never has had, and never could have, till the prophecies were developed which give it. This, and nothing more, is what sister White means by the “present test on the Sabbath;” it is the Sabbath as viewed in the light of Christ’s ministry in the most holy place of the Sanctuary. John says (Revelation 11:19) that under the sounding of the seventh angel, which must certainly be near the end, “the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.” The sight of the ark implies an earnest consideration of the law contained in the ark, and light in reference to it; and when this prophecy is fulfilled, although the Sabbath may have been kept all along before, will not new strength and force be added to the argument for the Sabbath and law by this fulfillment? — Most assuredly. But the importance of the Sabbath, from this stand-point, was not received from S.D. Baptists, nor any other people past or present, but only from the fulfillment of prophecy, as the great prophetic period of the 2300 days ended in 1844, and the temple of God in heaven was opened. There are, of course, arguments to be urged from the Scriptures in favor of the Sabbath as an independent institution, not connected with anything else; and these would be common to all. They would, as Eld. Andrews says, be “substantially the same in all ages.” But arguments in its behalf drawn from the fulfillment of prophecies which point out a work of reform on this great truth in the last days, belong to that time alone. And this is just the situation to-day. And it is this connection with prophecy which gives the Sabbath truth a vitality in this generation which it has not enjoyed before. In the light of these facts, the declaration that “it is now claimed that the world never had the light on the Sabbath question till Seventh-day Adventists rose up to give it,” is made without thought, or without conscience. RCASDA 41.2

So we might go on and examine his representations that we are time-setters, make the Sabbath a test of holiness, use deception in our methods of work, apply the mark of the beast ages in the past, believe in the keeping of the same absolute time for the Sabbath, etc., etc.: but we will not spend time on these points which those who have any acquaintance with our faith know so well how to answer. RCASDA 42.1

There is, however, another point which demands a word of notice. It is the assertion that some of our brethren have found it impossible to go by sunset time in high Northern latitudes, and so have changed to 6 o’clock time, by the advice or at least the concurrence of our General Conference. The general objection he states as follows:— RCASDA 43.1

“Now test the definite seventh-day theory in the frozen regions of the North. The day must be kept from sunset to sunset (Leviticus 23:32). But in the winter there are months when the sun is not seen there at all, so they have no sunset. And again, there are months when the sun is above the horizon all the time, when there is no sunset. Here the theory breaks down entirely, and the day must be reckoned by artificial means.” RCASDA 43.2

On this point we will let Eld. C. answer himself. In “Tabernacle Lectures,” p. 178, he says:— RCASDA 43.3

“How can you keep the seventh-day Sabbath at the north pole, where it is six months day and six months night? Let me ask in return, How can you keep Sunday there? Doesn’t Sunday follow the Sabbath at the north pole? But let us see if there is such a thing as a weekly Sabbath at the north pole. In the accounts of the explorations of Dr. Kane, Lieut. Greely, and others, we find they did such and such things on Tuesday, went to such a place on Friday, etc. Now, that was during the ‘six months night.’ But the days are measured off just as accurately as here, and the week has its apportioned place, together with the Sabbath, which can be found and kept in the arctic regions, if any one wants to keep it there. The north star and the ‘dipper’ give the earth’s revolutions as plainly as the sun does to us.” RCASDA 43.4

If these statements are facts, they explain the matter fully, and clear the subject of all difficulty. Now, has Eld. C. discovered any evidence to show that these are not facts? If he has, he should confess it. If he has not, his present position shows a willful rejection of common intelligence. This fact is what makes Eld. C.’s position so peculiar. A man can give a sensible reason for changing his position, when he secures new evidence and receives additional light. But he has no new light to present, nor a new argument or additional reason, which he did not have twenty years ago, and which have seemed to him all these years utterly insufficient to meet the force of Sabbath arguments. But suddenly he discovers that all these old objections to the Sabbath are sound and unanswerable, and all the Sabbath arguments which have seemed to him so strong and substantial, turn out all at once to be mere mist and moonshine. The change is in the man, not in the evidence. He continues:— RCASDA 43.5

“They keep one seventh of the time, and that is absolutely all that can be done. [That is just the thing that can’t be done in going round the world. But we will not stop to argue the point here.] Seventh-day Adventists have argued that there was no real difficulty here; it was all imaginary. But I happen to know that they themselves have got into serious trouble right there. They have churches located so far north in Norway that in winter the sun sets at 2 p.m. Nearly all the brethren work in mills. Of course they must lose Saturday any way. Then if they begin at sunset they cannot work Friday afternoon. This breaks up the time so that they could not get work nor make a living. So it was decided to begin the day at 6 p.m., instead of sunset. In this way they would work four hours after the seventh day began. Mrs. White and her son, Eld. W.C. White, were there, and favored the change. This, it will be seen, abandoned the whole definite day theory. In the fall of 1885 I was on a theological committee to investigate this case, and hence know how it was.” RCASDA 44.1

This language is calculated to convey the impression uniformly and inevitably, though it slyly refrains from asserting it directly, that this change was actually made in Norway, and the General Conference sanctioned it. The facts are these: We do not deny that there is some inconvenience, under some circumstances, in keeping the seventh day in a nation of Sunday-keepers. That inconvenience is somewhat increased, even in this latitude, when the sun sets earlier than six o’clock. It is still more largely increased in those latitudes where the sun sets at one season of the year as early as 2 p.m. A few brethren in the northern settlements of Norway, under these circumstances, raised the query whether it might not be proper for them to take the usual reckoning of the working day from 6 to 6. But they would not adopt such a view nor enter upon such a practice before it had been submitted to the General Conference, and received its approval. This is why the question came before the committee referred to; and when it did come up, the verdict was speedy and unanimous that the brethren ought there as elsewhere to go by sun time. And so no change was made. It will be noticed that the question was not one of difficulty to tell when the day began and ended, as governed by the sun, but was only one of convenience, inasmuch as it interfered with so large a portion of what the world still considered the working hours of the sixth day. Of course the persons could start in with their work again at 2 p.m., on Saturday, when the sun went down on that day, and hence would lose only their twenty-four hours. U.S. RCASDA 44.2