Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their view of the sanctuary. It is
vital with them. If they are wrong on this, their whole theory breaks down. The reader
should, therefore, study this subject carefully. They dwell upon it constantly, and affirm
that they are the only ones in all Christendom who have the light on the subject. I will
devote only a few pages to it, just enough to show the fallacy of their system.
They based their time of 1844 upon Dan. 8:14. "Unto two thousand and three hundred
days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The sanctuary was the earth. It was to
be cleansed by fire at the second advent. The 2300 days ended in 1844. Hence, Christ must
come that year. They proved it all by the Bible; so there could be no mistake, they said.
But Christ didn't come. Now what? Fanaticism dies hard, positive men don't like to yield.
So they now find that the sanctuary does not mean the earth at all, as they had said, but
a real building in heaven, just like the tabernacle which Moses built. That was a tent
with two rooms, the Holy place, containing the table, a candlestick, and golden altar; the
Most Holy, containing the ark, in which were the tables of stone, and over which was the
mercy seat and cherubim. See Heb. 9:17. The priests ministered in the first place every
day in the year, but only the high priest went into the Most Holy, and he only on the last
day of the year. Lev. 16. On that day he cleansed the sanctuary of the sins confessed
there during the year. All this was a type of just such a building in heaven, where Christ
ministers. Heb. 8:1-5; 9:1-9,24. In 1844 he left the first place and entered the Most Holy
to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, which, really, is the judgment. This explains their
disappointment. Jesus went into the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the
judgment in 1844, instead of coming to earth, as they first expected and preached! To
prove all this they make long, inferential arguments, which are open to objections from
all sides.
1. Do the Adventists KNOW that they are right about this question? No.
2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say it is, it is strange that
nobody ever found it out before.
3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, and knowing all their
arguments, I feel sure they are mistaken about it.
1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message to earth upon which the destiny
of the church and the world depended. The very first thing they did was to get the wrong
year, '43 instead of '44. Then, when they got that fixed up, instead of announcing the
real event to take place, the change in Christ's work in the sanctuary in heaven, they
said he was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the world, when nothing of the kind
was to occur!
2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found out the real mistake they had
made. Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Litch, etc., ever
accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of the great mass of 1844
Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary, and these were men of no note in
Miller's work.
3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-day Adventist's move, rejecting the idea of the
sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the third angel's message. What a hopeless tangle that Advent
work was! No wonder people rejected it. What if Moses had opposed Joshua, and John the
Baptist had opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a work, got it wrong, and then opposed
those who did finally get it right!
4. Instead of receiving the "light" of the sanctuary question from Mrs.
White's vision, or from heaven, they got it from O.R.L. Crosier. But he soon gave it all
up as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-day Adventists for many years. It looks badly
for a theory when its very authors renounce it.
5. Seventh-day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary theory to prove that the door
of mercy was shut in 1844, a theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at that time.
Here is my proof on this point: Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1 1887. Elder D.M. Canright:
"I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea of
the sanctuary in an article in an extra double number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The
object of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory
which I and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844
to 1848. Yes, I KNOW that Ellen G. Harmon - now Mrs. White - held the shut door theory at
that time." Truly yours, O.R.L. Crosier
Now listen to Mrs. White: Topsham, Me., April 21, 1847. "...The Lord showed me in
vision more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of
the sanctuary, etc., and that it was his will that Bro. C. should write out the view which
he gave us in the Day Star (extra), Feb 7, 1846. I fell fully authorized by the Lord to
recommend that extra to every saint...." E.G. White, "A Word to the Little
Flock," pages 11,12.
Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary theory. Before me lies "The
Present Truth," Vol. I, No. 6, December, 1849, by James White. "The Shut Door
Explained," is the leading article, in which it is argued from the type Lev. 16:17,
that when the high priest entered the Most Holy there could be no more pardon for sin.
"On this day of atonement he is a high priest for THOSE ONLY whose names are
inscribed on the bread-plate of judgment," page 44. No more salvation for sinners, is
what their sanctuary theory was then used to prove. The whole volume is full of this idea.
6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; in the type no sin could be
confessed and conveyed into the sanctuary after the high priest entered the Most Holy.
Lev. 4:1-7; 16:17,23,24. So if this was a type of the entrance of Christ into the Most
Holy in heaven in 1844, then truly the door of mercy did close there, and all sinners
since are lost.
7. No work whatever was to be done on the day of atonement, or day when the sanctuary
was cleansed. Lev. 23:27-32. The law was very strict. If the Advent argument on the
sanctuary is correct and the day of atonement began in 1844, then they ought not to have
worked a day since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held that it was a sin to work; but
time starved them out, and they had to go at it again.
8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that the door of mercy was entirely
shut against sinners in 1844, they next taught that ONLY THOSE could be saved who KNEW of
the change Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven in 1844. Thus Elder Smith, in
"Objections to the Visions Answered," pages 24- 26, says: "A knowledge of
Christ's position and work is necessary to the enjoyment of the benefits of his
mediation.... A general idea of his work was then (previous to 1844) sufficient to enable
men to approach unto God by him.... But when he changed his position (in 1844) to the Most
Holy place... that knowledge of his work which had up to that point been sufficient, was
no longer sufficient.... Who can find salvation now? Those who go to the Saviour where he
is and view him by faith in the Most Holy place.... This is the door now open for
salvation. But no man can understand this change without definite knowledge of the subject
of the sanctuary and the relation of type and anti-type. Now they may seek the Saviour as
they have before sought him, with no other ideas of his position and ministry than those
which they entertained while he was in the first apartment; but will it avail them? They
cannot find him there. That door is shut!" So Mrs. White: "They have no
knowledge of the move made in Heaven, or the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be
benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. ... They offer up their useless prayers to
the apartment which Jesus has left." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 171,172. What
abominable doctrine! No one can be saved unless they know of the change which Christ made
in Heaven in 1844. But no one except Seventh-day Adventists has the slightest idea of that
change. Reader, think of this.
9. But now they have abandoned this view of the sanctuary and hold that all who
honestly seek God may be saved without any of this "light" on the sanctuary.
Thus they have already held four different positions upon the sanctuary question: 1. It
was the earth. 2. The door of mercy was shut to all sinners in 1844. 3. It was open only
to those who learned about Christ's change in 1844. 4. It is now open to all. What will
they hold next?
After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the sanctuary, I feel sure that
they are in a great error on that point.
1. God's throne was always in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary, between the
cherubim, over the ark, never once in the Holy place. For proof on this point see Lev.
16:2; Num. 7:89; ISam. 4:4; IIKings 19:15. Smith argues that God's throne was sometimes in
the Holy place and refers to Ex. 33:9. But here the Lord appeared OUTSIDE the tabernacle,
and not in the Holy place at all. So his text fails him.
2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred years ago, he went directly to the
right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Heb. 8:1. Hence, he must have entered the
Most Holy then, instead of on 1844.
3. "Within the vail" is into the Most Holy place. "And thou shalt hang
up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of
the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the Holy place and the Most
Holy." Ex. 26:33. Also see Lev. 16:2,12,13.
None can fail to see that "within the vail" is in the Most Holy place where
the ark was. This is just where Jesus went eighteen hundred years ago. Proof: "Which
HOPE we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into
that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, EVEN Jesus made a high
priest for ever." Heb. 6:19,20. As the high priest went "within the vail,"
so Jesus, our high priest, went "within the vail," into the Most Holy place, to
the right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Nothing could be more plainly stated.
This upsets the whole Advent theory of 1844. For further proof see Ex. 27:21; 30:6;
40:22-26; Lev. 4:6,17; 16:15; 24:3; Num. 18:7; Matt. 27:51.
4. "Before the throne," Rev. 8:3. Elder Smith asserts that "the throne
of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary," because it is said that the
seven lamps and the golden altar were "before the throne," Rev. 4:5; 8;3. It is
as desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The same argument would prove that the
ark and God's throne were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, which we
know to be false. As there was only a vail which divided the Holy from the Most Holy,
where God's throne was, things in the Holy place were said to be "before the
Lord," as they were so near to the throne, which was just behind the curtain. Proof:
Ex. 27:20,21; 30:6-8; 40:23-25; Lev. 4:6,15-18. Even outside of the tabernacle entirely,
where the beasts were killed, was "before the Lord," as Lev. 4:15 shows. Abraham
walked "before the Lord," Gen. 24:40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was in
heaven.
5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where the ark and cherubim and
throne were in the Holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the antitype they
have the throne of God in the Holy place, not on some special occasion, but all the time
for 1800 years, just contrary to the type!
6. Adventists always assume and say that "the temple of God is the Most Holy
place." Sanctuary, page 234, by U. Smith. But this is false. The Most Holy place, or
the oracle, was a ROOM IN THE TEMPLE, but it was not the temple itself. In fact the
Scriptures carefully distinguished between the temple and the oracle or Most Holy. See
IKings 6:5,16,17,19,23; 7:50. The temple was the house, the whole building. IKings 7:50;
IIKings 11:13; ISam. 3:3; Matt. 21:12; Luke 1:9; Rev. 11:19.
7. When was the temple in heaven opened, Rev. 11:19? Adventists use this text to prove
that the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary was not opened till 1844. But it fails
them: 1) Because, as we have proved above, the temple is not the Most Holy place, but the
whole building. 2) Because the heavenly temple was opened when Christ began his ministry
there, 1800 years ago. Heb. 8:1,2; 9:8-12. 3) Because verse 19 of Rev. 11 properly belongs
with Rev. 12, and begins that new line of prophecy, instead of closing the line in Chapter
11. The Syriac thus divides it. Clarke, Barnes, Scott, and every commentator I have
consulted, connects this verse with Chapter 12 as the introduction. Says Scott: "V.
19 - This verse introduces a new subject, and should have been placed at the beginning of
the next chapter." Certainly; for when was the temple in heaven opened? When Jesus
went there to begin his ministry, of course. Heb. 9:8-12. Thus fails the main pillar of
the Adventists sanctuary theory.
Thus far I have argued on their own grounds that there is a real building up in heaven,
just like the sanctuary on earth. But that whole thing is extremely questionable.
1. As children are taught moral truths by object lessons, so God taught the Jews
spiritual truths by the object lessons of the types of worship. Hence, it does not follow
that in Christian worship there must be just such material things used up in heaven.
Rather the presumption is against it.
2. The whole temple service was for the Aaronic priesthood; but Christ is not a priest
after the order of Aaron, but is after that of Melchisedec, Heb. 7:11. Melchisedec had no
temple nor temple service, so Christ should have none. From Adam till Moses there was no
temple nor priestly service in heaven. Smith admits this. "There were no holy places
laid open, and no priestly work was established in heaven." Sanctuary, page 238.
Exactly; for that was under the Melchisedec priesthood, just as now. If no temple was
needed there for 4000 years, none is needed there now.
3. Paul directly states that the types of the law were "NOT the very image of the
things" they represent, Heb. 10:1. But Adventists make their argument on the
assumption that they were exact images of things in heaven, thus ignoring Paul's
statement.
4. Paul says that Christ is a minister of a greater and more perfect tabernacle, Heb.
9:11. Then it must differ from the earthly one.
5. Paul says it is one "not made with hands," Heb. 9:11. This shows that it
is not a material building.
6. Paul says that Jesus' flesh is the vail, Heb. 10:20. This shows that the temple was
only figurative.
7. Scarcely one of the types had an antitype just like it. Thus lambs and oxen were the
type of which Jesus was the antitype. But he was a MAN and they were BEASTS. The bodies of
those beasts were BURNED, Heb. 13:11,12, but Christ, the antitype was not burned. They
were slain at the door of the sanctuary, Lev. 17:3,4, but Jesus was not slain at the door
of the sanctuary. Their blood was carried into the temple and put on the altar, Lev.
4:6,7, but the blood of Christ was spilt on the ground. The Levitical priests made
offerings daily, but Christ only once for all, Heb. 9:25,26,28; 10:10,12,14. Elder Smith
says: "The fact that Moses made two apartments in his likeness of the heavenly temple
is a DEMONSTRATION that the latter has two apartments also." Again: "The Priests
here on earth, in both apartments, served unto the example of a like service in heaven.
Now Jesus is the only priest in heaven, and he must perform this 'like service.'" The
earthly priests offered, every day, the morning and evening sacrifice, sprinkling the
blood of fresh-slain victims in the outer sanctuary. So for more than eighteen hundred
years, Jesus, according to Mr. Smith, must have offered his own fresh-shed blood in the
outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary twice every day; that is more than 1,300,000
times from his ascension to 1844. This is the logical result of Mr. Smith's
'demonstration.' The apostle says, Heb. 7:27: "This he did once for all, when he
offered up himself. Thus the 'demonstration' flatly contradicts the scriptures." G.W.
Morton. The law regulating the service of the priests and the temple was changed, Heb.
7:12. Then certainly it is not carried out in heaven now. Adventists would have the whole
Levitical law of the sanctuary service transferred to heaven and carried out there! This
is the absurdity of their system. In Heb. 7:11-28 Paul marks many points of difference
between the types and the antitypes. The table of the Lord was in the temple in the Jewish
age, Mal. 1:7, but now the Lord's table is in the church, ICor. 10:21; 11:20. The seven
lamps in the temple of heaven "are the seven spirits of God," Rev. 4:4. Then
they are not literal lamps. So it is more than probable that none of the things mentioned
as being there are literal. In one place it is said that the saints in heaven are
"clothed in white robes," Rev. 7:9, but in another place this is explained to be
the righteousness of saints, Rev. 10:8.
In Rev. 8:3 it is said that the prayers of all saints are offered upon the golden
altar. Most evidently this is not to be taken literally, but only as a reference to the
Jewish mode of worship. Col. 2:16,17, says that the meats, drinks, feast days, new moons
and Sabbath days were a shadow of Christ. Reasoning as the Adventists do about the early
sanctuary, Heb. 8:5, we would expect to find something in the gospel exactly like them,
meats, drinks, yearly feast days, monthly holy days, etc. But where are they? In the
gospel there is nothing at all just like these types.
Paul says directly that the place into which Jesus went was "heaven itself, now to
appear in the presence of God for us," Heb. 9:24. The simple truth of the whole is
that the ages of types, object lessons, exact forms, set ceremonies, consecrated places
and holy vessels - all this ended at the cross, Col. 2:17. The answer of Jesus to the
woman at the well is exactly to the point. She said: "Our fathers worshipped in the
mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus said
unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor
yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to
worship him. God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in
truth." John 4:20-24. Under the gospel one place is no more holy than another. With
the holy places went all the holy vessels, sacrifices, incense, tables of stone, and all.
Peter states it all in a word: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ." IPet. 2:5. To the same effect, Eph. 2:20-22; ICor. 6:19. Now we are under a
new covenant; Heb. 8:6-13, an high priest of a new order, Heb. 7:11, we come to God by a
new way, Heb 10:20, by new ordinances, Mark 15:15-16; ICor. 11:23-26, by a different
temple, and a better sacrifice. Hence, there is no need of a temple in heaven just like
the old Jewish one.
The Adventists idea of the sanctuary in heaven is an absurdity. In Early Writings,
pages 114,115, Mrs. White was taken to heaven and shown all about it. She saw the building
exactly like the one on earth. In it was the candlestick, the table of show-bread, the
altar, the curtains, the ark; and "in the ark were tables of stone containing the Ten
Commandments." Think, now; what use for a literal candle in the immediate presence of
God whose glory is above the light of the sun. "They need no candle, neither light of
the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light." Rev. 22:5. And what use for a literal
table of show-bread there? Do the angels or the Lord eat the bread? Then real tables of
stone in Heaven! and the Lord sitting on the ark over them! What puerile ideas. Hear Paul
veto that idea: "Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart."
IICor. 3:3. Then think of the absurdity of having the Almighty God and all the "ten
thousand times ten thousand" (one hundred million) angels around his throne, dwelling
in a literal building with curtains, lamps, tables, walls, etc. It would need to be larger
than a whole State. Let Adventists read this: "Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not in
temples made with hands." Acts 7:48.
"But does not Paul say that the Jewish temple was a shadow, figure, a pattern of
heavenly things," Heb. 8 and 9? Yes; and so he says the offerings and holy days of
the old covenant were shadows of Christ, Col. 2:16,17. But where are our feast days, new
moons, meats, etc., under the gospel? Nowhere, in a spiritual sense. So Paul says the
earthly temple was only a FIGURE of a "tabernacle not made with hands." Heb.
9:9-11. How could he say more plainly that the heavenly are not literal? Did Christ
minister in a literal temple in heaven from Adam till the cross, four thousand years? No.
Did Melchisedec have a temple? No. Gen. 14:18-20. As Christ is a priest after his order,
he needs no literal temple. According to the Adventists, the Most Holy place of the
heavenly sanctuary was entirely empty and unoccupied from the ascension of Jesus till
1844. Even Christ did not enter it once! Finally, their whole argument on the sanctuary
depends upon proving that the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 are a part of the twenty-three
hundred days of Dan. 8:14. But does the Bible say they are? No; nor can they prove it. The
very best they can claim is to make it plausible that they are.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2. Kad je Isus otišao na nebo, 1800 godina ranije, on je otišao direktno i seo na presto sa desne strane Bogu. Heb. 8:1. Dakle, on je morao ući u Svetinju nad svetinjama onda, umesto 1844.
3. "Iza zavese" je u Svetinji nad svetinjama. "I
ti ćeš obesiti zavesu pod kopčama, da možeš doneti u roku onamo iza
zavese Kovčeg svedočanstva: i zavesa će stajati deleći Svetinju od Svetinje nad svetinjama." Ex. 26:33. Takođe vidi Lev. 16:2,12,13.
Niko ne može nekažnjeno videti ono "iza zavese" što je na mestu Svetinje nad svetinjama gde je Kovčeg bio. To je upravo gde je Isus otišao 1800 godina ranije. Dokaz:
"Koji NADU imamo kao sidro duše, i sigurno i čvrsto, a koje ulazi iza zavese, kamo je kao preteča za nas ušao, ČAK je Isus velikim sveštenikom učinjen za sve." Heb. 6:19,20. Kao
veliki sveštenik otišao je "iza zavese", pa je Isus, naš veliki sveštenik,
otišao "iza zavese", u Svetinju nad svetinjama, s desne strane Bogu i seo na
prestolje. Ništa ne može biti više jasno navedeno. Ovo uznemirava celu Adventu teoriju 1844. Za daljnji dokaz vidi Ex. 27:21; 30:6; 40:22-26; Lev. 4:6,17; 16:15; 24:3; Broj. 18:07; Matt. 27:51.
Adventistička ideja svetilišta na nebu je apsurd. U Ranim Spisima, stranice 114,115, gđa White je uzišla prema nebu i pokazala sve o tome. Videla je zgradu tačno kao što je ona na zemlji. U
njemu je bio svećnjak, sto sa postavljenim-hlebovima, oltar, zavese, kovčeg; i "u
kovčegu su kamene ploče koje sadrže Deset zapovesti." Zamislite, sada, ono što se koristi za doslovnu sveću u neposrednoj Božjoj prisutnosti čija slava je iznad svetla sunca. "Oni ne trebaju sveću, ni svetla od sunca, jer Gospod Bog daje im svetlo." Otk. 22:5. A da li je ono što koriste tamo doslovni sto sa postavljenim-hlebovima? Da li anđeli ili Gospod jedu hleb? Onda prave kamene ploče na nebu! i Gospod sedi na kovčegu preko njih! Kakva detinjasta ideje. Čujte Pavlov veto te ideje: ". Ne na kamenim pločama, nego na telesnim tablicama srca" II Cor. 3:3. Onda
zamislite o apsurdnosti koje ima svemogući Bog i svi "10000 puta 10000" (100
miliona) anđela oko prestola, stanovanje u doslovnom zgradi sa zavesama,
svetiljke, stolovi, zidovi, itd. To bi trebalo biti veće od cele države. Neka adventisti pročitaju ovo: ". Ali za njega, Svevišnji ne prebiva u hramovima koji su napravljeni rukama" Dela 7:48.
--------------------------------------------- =========================
What answer do Sabbatarians make to all the preceding testimony? This:
1. "The Bible, the Bible only, is our rule. We don't go by history." Reply:
Why then do they themselves appeal to history? No people depend so much upon history, none
refer to it so often, none make so great claims from it as Seventh-day Adventists. Thus
Andrew's book on the Sabbath contains 512 pages. Of these 192 are on the Bible and 320 on
history. Yet they don't go by history! Wherever they can find a scrap in their favor they
make the most of it. Of their reliance on history Elder Smith says: "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." Replies to Canright, pages 41-42. Mark: One of the
grandest facts they have to present in favor of Saturday is what? Bible testimony? No, but
witness from history. Yet, they don't go by history! The fact is they quote history
whenever they possibly can. Why, then, cry out against history when we follow them there?
Because it is against them.
2. They say that "the early fathers are unreliable, fools, apostates, forgers and
frauds." Listen to them: Of one of the fathers Elder Smith says: "A fraud, an
impostor, a forger.... An old forger of the second century who wrote things too silly to
be repeated and too shameful to quote." Replies to Elder Canright, page 39. Hear
Elder Waggoner: "Surely insanity could not produce any more driveling nonsense than
this." "Such childish nonsense is seldom seen under the heading of reason."
"It would have been a blessing to the world if they had all been lost." Fathers
of the Catholic Church, pages 206, 209, 217. This is the way they dispose of all the
Christian fathers who said a word in favor of Sunday. No doubt it would have been better
for those who keep the Jewish Sabbath if all the Christian fathers had been lost and,
better still, if the New Testament also had been lost, for both these are against them.
Why this effort to break down the testimony of these early Christian writers? Because they
are against them and Sabbatarians know it. Whatever crude notions those fathers might have
had, they could state a simple fact of their own days as to whether they did, or did not,
keep Sunday. They all agree that they did and their testimony is decisive.
But how much is there to their charge of fraud, forgery, etc.? Just this: In those days
the author's name was not always signed to his book; hence it sometimes happened that a
book was attributed to the wrong author by mistake. No fraud or forgery was designed or
practiced by any one. Look at Hebrews. No name is signed to it. It is still a disputed
point as to who wrote it, Paul, Barnabas, or some other apostle. Shall we, therefore, call
it a "fraud" and throw it out of the Bible? No. So of the epistle of Barnabas
for instance. No name was signed to it, yet it was generally attributed to the apostle
Barnabas and was read in all the churches as authority as early as A.D. 120. Some
attributed it to others; but all agree that it was written as early as A.D. 120 by some
Christian and gave the opinion and customs of the church at that time. "Fraud,
fraud," cry the Sabbatarians, "Barnabas never wrote it." Well, what of it?
Some Christian wrote it within twenty-five years of John's death and it says that
Christians then kept Sunday.
3. "None of the fathers call Sunday the Sabbath." So say the Sabbatarians.
That is about right. The early church said with Paul, Col. 2:16, that the Sabbath was
abolished with other Jewish rites. The first day was not the Sabbath, but "the Lord's
Day," "the eighth day," "resurrection day," etc.
4. Sabbatarians say that Christians worked on Sunday during the first century or
longer. Their evidence for this is very questionable as we will soon see. Yet possibly at
first the day may not have been observed as strictly as later on; but still it was the day
on which all Christians met for their worship according to the custom of the apostles.
This is what we claim and have abundantly proved.
5. Sabbatarians say: "The Christians kept the Sabbath for centuries after
Christ." Reply: All history abundantly shows that the Jewish Christians observed the
Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, etc., for a long time. In some churches where the Jewish
element predominated, the Gentiles may have also kept the Sabbath, but all parties kept
Sunday at the same time. These are the facts about Sabbath-keeping in the early church as
proved above.
6. Seventh-day Adventists quote so-called "eminent historians" to prove their
assertions. With these authors they deceive the people and deceive themselves. They quote
them as "reliable historians," "high authorities," "eminent
divines," "all friends of Sunday," etc. But who are they? Look at Andrews'
History of the Sabbath, their standard work. All others relating to the history of the
Sabbath are only a re-hash of this. It is served up on all occasion and his authors are
quoted over and over by writers and preachers. But the great bulk of his quotations are
from such men as Heylyn, Domville, Morer, Cox, Brerewood, White, etc., Episcopal clergymen
of England who were bitter opposers of Sunday sacredness.
-1. Brerewood, in the seventeenth century, was only a college professor, not of note
enough to be even named in any cyclopedia I have seen, and I have consulted many. He was a
fiery erratic, and argued that the Sabbath law was given only to the master. See The
Sabbath by Gilfillin, pages 122-123.
-2. Coleman, an American writer of our own times, scarcely mentioned in any cyclopedia.
-3. Dr. Cox, a Scottish anti-Sunday writer last century, not even named in any
cyclopedia. See Gilfillin, page 168. Yet Andrews quotes him TWENTY-TWO TIMES, long
quotations, as a friend of Sunday! He might as well quote one of his own party. In proof
of this read the following from Dr. Lewis, Seventh- day Baptist, in his "History of
Sabbath and Sunday": "A pastor of the Mill Yard Seventh-day Baptist Church in
London, Robert Cornthwaite, published five works upon the Sabbath question." Of the
last book Lewis says: "Robert Cox quotes largely from this work." Pages 337-339.
Exactly; then Andrews calls this man a friend of Sunday!!
-4. Domville, another anti-Sunday writer of the nineteenth century, not in any
cyclopedia. He denies that there was any authority in the Bible for observing Sunday, even
as a day for meetings. Gilfillin, page 143. Yet Andrews quotes him THIRTEEN TIMES as a
standard Sunday authority!
-5. Heylyn was the friend of the infamous Laud of England. In 1618 Charles I of England
issued a "Book of Sports" for Sunday, allowing of dancing, wrestling and various
games on Sunday. See Gilfillin, page 85. Pious people opposed the declaration as a
desecration of Sunday. Laud, by the Kings command, hired this Heylyn and Dr. White to
write against Sunday sacredness, and in favor of the King's book. In four months a large
volume was written, printed and delivered according to order, to prove what was wanted
against Sunday. The Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge says of Heylyn: "He was a very
voluminous controversial writer, but his works are of no value now." From this man
Andrews makes THIRTY-SIX quotations, many of them long, as his chief evidence on his main
points!
-6. White, the man associated with Heylyn, as the hireling of Laud in writing the above
book, is quoted ELEVEN TIMES by Andrews as a reliable DEFENDER of Sunday! He might as well
quote Elder Waggoner as a defender of Sunday.
-7. Morer is a writer of the eighteenth century, mentioned in no cyclopedia. He wrote
to disprove the divine origin of Sunday observance. See Gilfillin, page 142. Of one of his
statements, which happened to favor Sunday, Elder Waggoner says: "Dishonest as it
manifestly is," etc. Replies to Elder Canright, page 146. From this
"dishonest" man Elder Andrews makes no less than FORTY-SEVEN QUOTATIONS, many of
them long!
-8. Jeremy Taylor, of the seventeenth century, the friend and chaplain of the
villainous Laud, wrote against the divine authority of Sunday, and yet is quoted by
Andrews as the friend of Sunday!
These are samples of his authors. Most of them were members of the Church of England,
and that, too, during the worst period of that church; a church which permits the widest
range in theological opinions, such as Unitarianism, Universalism, future probation,
annihilation, rationalism, high church, low church, etc. How much then does it signify as
to the soundness of one's opinion to state that he is a minister of that church?
Take from the historical part of Andrew's history his quotations and arguments from the
above authors and you would hardly have a skeleton left. And even quotations from these
are one-sided. Waggoner, Smith, Butler, and all the lesser lights among Seventh-day
Adventists who have come after Andrews simply use these quotations which he gathered for
them. But they might as well quote Ingersoll and Tom Paine as "friends of the
Bible" as to quote these men as "friends of the Sunday Sabbath." Each of
them wrote on purpose to refute the claims of Sunday as a Sabbath of divine authority.
Thousands of readers ignorant of history are misled, as I was once, by these quotations
used by the Adventists. If they had the truth they would not be compelled to rely upon
such authors.
The Pagan Romans Never Kept Sunday
Seventh-day Adventists affirm that keeping Sunday was adopted from the pagan Romans by
the Catholics and from the Catholics by the Protestants. This idea they industriously
teach everywhere. They say that these pagans kept Sunday in worship of the sun. See
Andrews' History of the Sabbath, pages 258-2664. Such statements are utterly false. Each
day of the week was named after some god and, in a certain sense, was devoted to the
worship of that god, as Monday to the moon, Saturday to Saturn, Sunday to the sun, etc.
But did they cease work on these days? No; if they had they would have kept every day in
the week. Did they observe Sunday by ceasing to work? No, indeed. No such thing was taught
or practiced by the Romans. They had no weekly rest day.
Prof. A. Rauschinbusch of Rochester Theological Seminary quotes Lotz thus: "'It is
a vain thing to attempt to prove that the Greeks and Romans had anything resembling the
Sabbath. Such opinion is refuted even by this, that the Roman writers ridicule the Sabbath
as something peculiar to the Jews.' In proof he cites many passages from the Roman poets,
and one from Tacitus. Seneca also condemned the Sabbath observance of the Jews as a waste
of time by which a seventh part of life was lost." Saturday or Sunday? Page 83.
Herzog says: "No special religious celebration of any one day of the week can be
pointed out in any one of the pagan religions." Article Sabbath. This fact is
accidentally confessed by Elder Waggoner. Of Constantine's law, A.D. 321, he says:
"Though the venerable day of the sun had long - very long - been venerated by them
and their heathen ancestors, THE IDEA OF REST FROM WORLDLY LABOR IN ITS WORSHIP WAS
ENTIRELY NEW." Replies to Elder Canright, page 130. Mark this confession for it gives
up the main pillar of their argument in their effort to prove that Sunday-keeping was
taken from the pagans. THE PAGASN NEVER KEPT SUNDAY. It was a common work day like other
days of the week. The idea and the custom of keeping Sunday as a day of rest from work
originated with the Christians, not with pagans. So much for that falsehood. Again:
Saturday was sacred to Saturn as Sunday was to the sun. So Adventists are keeping a
heathen day the same as Sunday-keepers are!
Constantine Did Not Change the Sabbath
It has been common for Sabbatarians to point to the law of Constantine as a chief
factor in changing the Sabbath to Sunday. There never was any truth in the charge; but
Elder Waggoner now owns it all up and confesses that it has nothing whatever to do in
changing the Sabbath. "Constantine, in his decrees, said not one word either for or
against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible." "It is safe to affirm that there was
nothing done in the time of Constantine, either by himself or any other, that has the
least appearance of changing the Sabbath." Replies to Elder Canright, page 150. That
is the truth and a good confession, though it contradicts all that they have said
heretofore. Now let them revise their old books to harmonize with this truth and they will
be much smaller.
Constantine's Sunday Law and Its Object
A.D. 321, Constantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, issued the following edict:
"Let all the judges and town 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; because it often happens that no
other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being
let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven."
The simple facts about this law are these: Christians from the days of the apostles had
kept the first day of the week; but there was no civil law to protect or aid them in it.
By this time they had become very numerous in the empire and their influence was rapidly
gaining. The old pagan religion was falling before them. Constantine, to say the least,
was favorable to Christianity. His parents were Christians. He was shrewd enough to see
that it was for his interest to favor this new and rising religion. Hence, as soon as he
publicly professed Christianity, he issued several edicts favoring it in various ways,
this one concerning Sunday among the rest. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia well says:
"He was no doubt convinced of the superior claims of Christianity as the rising
religion; but his conversion was a change of policy, rather than of moral character. He
knew Christianity well, but only as a power in the Roman Empire and he protected it as a
wise and far-seeking statesman... His first edict concerning the Christians (Rome, 312) is
lost. By the second (Milan, 313) he granted them, not only free religious worship and the
recognition of the state, but also reparation of previously incurred losses... A series of
edicts of 315, 316, 319, 321, and 323, completed the revolution. Christians were admitted
to the offices of the state... An edict of 321 ordered Sunday to be celebrated by
cessation of all work in public."
It will be seen that this edict was only one of seven issued to favor Christians. 1.)
It was not made to please or favor the pagans, for, as seen above, they did not keep
Sunday. 2.) As we have proved, the Christians did all keep Sunday, hence this law would
favor and please them. 3.) The edict was not addressed to Christians for they needed no
such law for themselves as they kept that day voluntarily. 4.) It was not worded in
Christian terms, "Lord's Day," as it was addressed to pagans. 5.) It was couched
in pagan terms, "day of the sun," that pagans might understand it and that it
might offend them less. This law, then, made no change in the observance of Sunday on the
part of Christians; but it did secure to that day a better observance by requiring
everyone, pagans and all, to cease work that day. But it is said that this law of
Constantine, A.D. 321, was the first law ever made prohibiting work on Sunday. Very true,
but why? Because none but Christians believed it wrong to work that day; and up to that
date Constantine had no power to make laws and hence could not have made a law for keeping
Sunday if they had desired to. It is noticeable that the first emperor who favored
Christianity made, among other laws favoring Christians, a civil law prohibiting work on
Sunday.
That this law was made at the request of Christians is now admitted by Adventists. Thus
Elder A.T. Jones in the Battle Creek Journal, December 11, 1888, says: "It is
demonstrated that the first Sunday law that ever was enacted was at the request of the
church; it was in behalf of the church, and it was expressly to help the church."
Exactly, and this proves that the church kept Sunday before that law was made. It is an
absurdity to say that the pagans had always kept Sunday and yet had never made a law
concerning it. As Adventists all agree, the first Sunday law was made to favor Christians.
This shows that Sunday observance was then regarded as an essential part of Christianity.
Of this law Mosheim says: "The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and
stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiar
law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly
been." Mosheim, century 4, part 2, chapter 4, section 5.
This law, addressed to pagans who had always worked on Sunday, required the cessation
of business on that day and so secured to Christians a better observance of Sunday than
before. The ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen, writing of Constantine, says: "He also
enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's Day... He honored the Lord's Day
because on it Christ rose from the dead." Ecc. Hist., page 22. It was, then, in
behalf of Sunday as a Christian day, not as a pagan festival, that this law was made.
Found At Last - The Exact Time and Place the Pope Changed the Sabbath!
I pressed the Adventists to name the time and place when and where the Sabbath was
changed by the pope, and to name the pope and the facts about such a change if it ever
occurred. Nettled by this, Elder Waggoner undertook the Herculean task. A worse sample of
assumption and perversion of facts it would be hard to find. At last he settles on the
council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, as the place and time when and where the Sabbath was
changed. The 29th canon of that council read thus: "Christians ought not to Judaize
and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's Day, should
rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be
accursed from Christ." On this the Elder says: "Now, if any one can imagine what
would be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to learn what it
could be." "Now I claim that I have completely met this demand; I have shown the
time, the place, and the power that changed the Sabbath." Replied to Canright, pages
141, 151. He claims that this was "a Catholic council" and that "historians
early and late have made much mention" of this council. Now let us examine his
position.
1. If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the pope right here, as he affirms, then
certainly it was not changed before nor after at any other place. So if this fails their
whole cause is lost. Let the reader mark the importance of this fact.
2. He admits what every scholar knows, that till after the time of Constantine the
bishop of Rome had no "authority whatever above the other bishops" and so could
not have changed the Sabbath before that time. He says: "It was Constantine himself
that laid the foundation of the papacy." Replies to Elder Canright, page 148. Surely
the papacy did not exist before its foundation was laid.
3. He admits, as above, that Constantine did nothing to change the Sabbath.
4. But we have abundantly proved in preceding pages that all Christians long before
this date were unanimous in observing the Lord's Day. This one simple facts proves the
utter absurdity of the claim that it was changed at Laodicea, A.D. 364, or by the papacy
at any time.
5. In the year 324, or just 40 years before the council of Laodicea, Eusebius, bishop
of Cesarea, Palestine, wrote his celebrated history of Christianity. He had every possible
opportunity to know what Christians did throughout the world. He says: "And all
things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to
the Lord's Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." Quoted in Sabbath Manual,
page 127.
That is the way the Sabbath and Sunday stood in the church 40 years before Laodicea.
They did not keep the Sabbath, but did keep the Lord's Day, had transferred all things to
it. How much truth, then, can there be in the position that the Sabbath was changed to
Sunday by the pope 40 years later? Shame on such brazen attempts to pervert the truth. But
let us look at the real facts about the council at Laodicea. Seventh-day Adventists claim
two things, viz: that the Sabbath was changed by the Roman church, and that it was done by
the authority of the pope. Then they select Laodicea as the place and time, but,
1. Laodicea is not Rome. It is situated in Asia Minor over 1,000 miles east of Rome. It
was in Asia not in Europe. It was an Eastern, not a Western town, an oriental, not a Latin
city.
2. It was a Greek, not a Roman city.
3. The pope of Rome did not attend this council at Laodicea, A.D. 364. Does Waggoner
claim that he did? No, he does not dare to.
4. The pope did not attend, nor did he send a legate or a delegate or any one to
represent him. In fact, neither the Roman Catholic church nor the pope had anything to do
with the council in any way, shape or manner. It was held without even their knowledge or
consent.
5. At this early date, A.D. 364, the popes, or rather bishops of Rome, had no authority
over other bishops. It was 200 years later before they were invested with authority over
Western churches. Even their authority was stoutly resisted for centuries in the East
where this council was held. See Bower's History of the Popes, or any church history.
Speaking of Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome A.D. 314 to 336, only 28 years before this
council at Laodicea, Elder Waggoner says: "The bishop of Rome had not then yet
attained to any authority whatever above the other bishops." Replies to Canright,
page 143. This is true. Did they in the next twenty-eight years gain authority to change
the keeping of the Sabbath from one day to another throughout the whole world?
Preposterous!
6. Liberius was bishop of Rome at the time of this council of Laodicea. He was degraded
from his office, banished, and treated with the utmost contempt. Bowers says that in order
to end his exile, Liberius "wrote in a most submissive and cringing style to the
eastern bishops." History of the Popes, Vol. I, page 64. And this was the pope who
changed the Sabbath at a council of these same eastern bishops, 1,000 miles away, which he
never attended!
7. The council of Laodicea was only a local council, a small, unimportant affair and
not a general council at all. Elder Waggoner magnifies it into a great "Catholic
[general] council," a claim which is utterly false. The general councils are: 1.)
That at Nice, A.D. 325. 2.) That at Constantinople, A.D. 381. 3.) That at Ephesus, A.D.
431, etc. See the list in Johnson's Cyclopedia, or any history. Bower in his extensive
work, the "History of the Popes," gives an account of all the general councils,
the important local councils, and all with which Rome or the popes had to do, but does not
even mention this one at Laodicea. He mentions many councils held about that time, but not
this one. He says: "Several other councils were held from the year 363 to 368, of
which we have no particular account." Vol. I, page 79. I have searched through a
number of cyclopedias and church histories and can find no mention at all of the council
at Laodicea, in most of them, and only a few lines in any. Rev. W. Armstrong, a scholar of
Canton, Pa., says: "This council is not even mentioned by Mosheim, Milner, Ruter,
Reeves, Socrates, Sozomen, nor by four other historians on my table." McClintock and
Strong_s Cyclopedia says: "Thirty-two bishops were present from different provinces
in Asia." All bishops of the Eastern church, not one from the Roman church! And yet
this was the time and place when and where the Roman church and the pope changed the
Sabbath!
8. Now think of it: this little local council of thirty-two bishops revolutionizes the
whole world on the keeping of the Sabbath!
9. The fact is that this council simply regulated in this locality an already long
established institution, the Lord's Day, just the same as council after council did
afterwards. If this changed the Sabbath to Sunday, then it has been changed a hundred
times since! Sabbatarians point to these different regulations as so many acts in changing
the Sabbath, when they have not the remotest relation to such a thing any more than have
the resolutions with regard to keeping Sunday which are passed year by year now in all
religious assemblies. Elder Waggoner makes this truthful statement: "The decrees of
councils have not as a general thing been arbitrary laws telling what MUST BE, so much so
they have been the formulation of the opinions and practices largely prevalent at the
time... Infallibility had been attributed to the pope hundreds of years before it became a
dogma of the church." Fathers of the Catholic Church, page 333, Exactly, and just so
the Lord's Day had been kept by the church hundreds of years before the council of
Laodicea mentioned it.
10. The church of Laodicea where this council was held was raised up by Paul himself,
Col. 4:13, 16; 1Tim. 6: to close of the epistle. It was one of the seven churches to which
John wrote. Rev. 3:14. Hence it is certain it was well instructed and grounded in the
doctrines of the apostles. Between Paul and this council, that is A.D. 270, Anatolius was
a bishop of Laodicea. He wrote: "Our regard for the Lord's resurrection, which took
place on the Lord's Day, will lead us to celebrate it on the same principle." Canon
16. Here we have that church keeping Sunday one hundred years before this council.
11. Finally, if the council of Laodicea changed the Sabbath, as Adventists say, then it
was changed by the Greek church instead of the Roman church; changed by the eastern
churches over which Rome had no authority; changed before the papacy was established,
before the pope had any authority over the east, by a small local council which neither
the pope nor any of his servants attended. The absurdity of this claim is manifest without
further argument.
For many years I accepted these false statements of Sabbatarian writers as undoubted
truths, as all their converts do. I had no means of knowing better. I preached strongly
what I read in their books and led hundreds still more ignorant than myself to believe it.
Gradually the truth dawned upon me that I was being misled, but it then took me years to
learn the real facts in the case and free myself from the superstition which bound me. Now
I have investigated the matter till I am fully satisfied for myself that, to sustain their
false theories, they have done great violence to the plainest facts of history. The
assertion that the pope changed the Sabbath is a fair sample of the rest. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. "Biblija, samo Biblija, je naše pravilo. Ne idemo u istoriju." Odgovor: Zašto onda oni sami pristupaju istoriji? Nema
ljudi toliko zavisnih o istoriji, niko se ne poziva na to tako često, niti uzimaju tako velike tvrdnje iz nje kao adventisti sedmog dana. Tako Endrusova knjiga o Suboti sadrži 512 stranica. Od tih 192 su na Bibliji i 320 na istoriji. Ipak, oni ne idu u istoriju! Gde mogu naći belešku u njihovu korist oni to čine velikim delom. O
svom oslanjanju na istoriju Starješina Smith kaže: "Jedna od sjajnih
činjenica koju moramo predstaviti je da je Bog uvek imao svedoke njegove
svete subote od dana Adama do sada." Odgovori Canrightu, stranice 41-42. Mark: Jedna od sjajnih činjenica koju oni moraju predstaviti u korist subote je šta? Biblijsko svedočanstvo? Ne, nego svedok iz istorije. Ipak, oni ne idu u istoriju! Činjenica je da oni citiraju istoriju kad god je moguće. Zašto, onda, vikati protiv istorije, kada smo je slediti tamo? Jer je protiv njih.
Preveo Milos Popadic |
