IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK THE SEVENTH?

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. 2nd, 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. Stow 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.SC3 125.2

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 Matthew 12:39, 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, Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1 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. 23:54, 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,” etc. 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.” Matthew 22:40 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 Low Hampton, N.Y. recommends to give the light on the second Advent. The meat in due season.SC3 126.1

Your erroneous doctrine is heartily welcome 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 23:54.” 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 Matthew 27:62, 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,” etc. 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 extolled by your hearers in New Bedford, Fairhaven, etc., 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.SC3 128.1

Respecting your text in Matthew 12:40 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.SC3 130.1

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, etc. Now for the proof of how long he was there. First testimony - his disciples, Luke 24:21-23 Second testimony - Angels, 5:7 Third testimony - Jesus himself, 46 v. “Thus it behooved 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 1 Corinthians 15:4; Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34 and 8:31 ^{1Campbell translates this in three, and Matthew 27:63, within three days.}; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; John 2:19 And five times by his accusers, Matthew 26:61; 27:40 and 63; Mark 14:58; 15:29 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 Matthew 12:40, 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 4:16, 17, and 5:1 Here the Jews were to fast three days, but Esther ended it the third. See also 1st 1 Kings 20:29, the seven days ended on the seventh. Also, Genesis 17:12, eight days. Leviticus 12:3, shows the eighth the same. Thus we see that the testimony of Jesus is clear.SC3 130.2

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 23:54-56 “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.” Exodus 12:6 The original - see margin - reads between the two evenings. See the same in Numbers 28:4, - practiced and carried out even to lighting the lamps in the tabernacle. Exodus 30:8SC3 131.1

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, (Matthew 27, and Mark 15,) 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 “brought sweet spices,” (Mark 16:1,) and be ready to keep the Sabbath according to the commandment, (please read it in Exodus 20:8-11,) as stated in Luke 23:54-56SC3 131.2

You will understand Mark 15:42, “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 16 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 0’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 19:31 Here then the antitype 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.” Leviticus 23:37 You see there is no provision to defer the Sabbath festivals whenever they happened on the Sabbath of the Lord our God.SC3 132.1

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.SC3 133.1

I have gone much further into this argument that 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, etc. etc. 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.SC3 133.2

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 Laodicean 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 scapegoat 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 were 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 were 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. Isaiah 1:10-15 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, not have ever known, or have intimated any such things. 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.SC3 133.3

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,” etc. 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 stolen 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, Matthew 12:39, 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 nowhere says, two days, and three nights.SC3 135.1

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.SC3 136.1

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.SC3 136.2

It is clear that the Jewish feasts always occurred when they fell on the Sabbath of the Lord. Leviticus 23:37, last cl.SC3 136.3