NOTHING TO SURRENDER

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, January 1, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 1

NOTHING TO SURRENDER.

HE who candidly surveys the field of controversy between the Sabbath and Sunday, must be struck first of all by the contrast between the lines of defense adopted by the respective friends of these two institutions.

On the Sunday side he will see confusion everywhere prevailing, some divisions directing their batteries against others on their own side, some surrendering what others are tenaciously trying to hold, taking positions which destroy each other, continually changing their base, and surrendering one position for another equally exposed when the power of truth is brought to bear upon it; until we are able to compile from their own lips confessions covering the whole ground, and acknowledging all their positions to be untenable.

On this point the last instance is always the most notable. It is now the book against the Sabbath by Mr. D. B. Byers, with an introduction by Bishop R. Dubs, D. D. In his introductory remarks Dr. Dubs says: “Ministers and laymen in various parts of our country, have frequently asked me to designate the best works that have been written against Sabbatarian errors; but after careful inquiry I could not find a single exhaustive treatise on the subject that I could recommend.”

Ah! then the works by Dr. Akers, Fuller, Preble, Gilfillan, and a host of others who have essayed to settle this question by merely a weak pamphlet or a shallow tract, have not been exhaustive, and could not be recommended. That sweeps the field of everything except this wonderful book by Mr. Byers. Concerning this work the Dr. continues: “The author has fully met my expectations in the execution of his task, and I have derived much profit from the perusal of the book.”

But unfortunately for this delightful satisfaction, now comes the ponderous N. Y. Independent, and drives right over the little breastwork behind which Mr. Byers and Dr. Dubs so complacently sconced themselves, leveling it to the ground, and declaring, not without a seeming tinge of impatience at such abortive efforts, that we must all go back to the keeping of the seventh day, if we have nothing better against it than this book of Mr. Byers. Thus between Dr. Dubs and the Independent, what show of defense is left for Sunday-keeping?

On the contrary, look at the line of Sabbath defense. The ranks of its friends are unbroken. They have never been obliged to change their base of operations from any advantage obtained over them in any direction. Their testimony is consistent with itself, uniform, and unchanging. The same arguments used in America for the Sabbath are used in Europe; the same in Norway as in Egypt; in Minnesota as in Florida; in Maine as in Oregon. And we do not now recall a single argument in behalf of the Sabbath, which, amid all the excessive attacks that have been made upon this institution during the past thirty years, its friends have been obliged to abandon. The evidence, to be sure, has been strengthened, and new arguments discovered; but the old all still stand good, with not even an out-post surrendered. The reason of this is plain: The Sabbath has in its behalf the plain testimony of the word of the Lord; and that cannot be changed nor set aside.