696
THE WATCHMAN
PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY TIE
SOUTHERN PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
NASHVILLE, TENN.
Price, $1.00 per Year Single Copy, 5 Cents
G. I. BUTLER Editors P. T. MAGAN } Associate
L. A. SMITH E. J. BURNHAM Editors
ENTERED AT THE POST OFFICE AT NASHVILLE. TENN.,
AS SECOND CLASS MATTER, APRIL 12, 1h;
Nashville, Tennessee, Oct., 29, 1907.
THE SEVENTH-PART-OF-TIME FOLLY
UR friends who teach the seventh-part-
of-time theory of Sabbath observance
say that where the term “the seventh
day” is used, it simply means the sev-
enth part of the time, irrespective of the par-
ticular day of the week; while we say that
wherever that term is used in the Bible, it al-
ways means the seventh day of the weekly cy-
cle, as specific every whit as Saturday is in our
weekly cycle. Now which is right? Well, ac-
cording to our friends’ theory, the seventh day
means the seventh part of time. Then in
Ex. 16:22, where it says the people gathered
twice as much manna on the sivth day, it
means the sixth part of the time; so the fifth
day would, by this principle of reckoning,
be the fifth part of time; the fourth, the fourth
part of time; the third day, one third of the
time; the second, one half of the time, and
the first day, the svhole of the time. I'he first
day of the week, then, comprehend
about everything.
would
Now the reasoning is in precise harmony
with the seventh-part-of-time theory; but the
conclusion is ridiculous nonsense. ‘I'he trouble
therefore must be wholly with the premises.
They are wholly fallacious. No; it is well
known that the names of the days of the week
among the Israelites were, first day of the
week, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and
the Sabbath day, and were just as specific as
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, ctc., the names as
given by the heathen, which we have adopted.
Therefore the seventh-part-of-time theory is
utterly untenable.
The arguments of Sunday-keepers are in a
perfect muddle. They tell us God only re-
quires us to keep one day in seven after six
of labor, and yet that the Sabbath was changed
at the cross, and that still one seventh part
of time is all that is required to be kept; and
they expatiate upon the impossibility of keep-
ing any specific, particular day. So the posi-
tion must stand like this: The Sabbath was
changed from one day in seven and no day in
particular to another day in seven and mo
day in particular. Rather indefinite, surely, as
well as quite ridiculous. But let no one sup-
pose for a moment that our first-day friends
who use the “seventh-part-of-time,” * no-day-
in-particular,” “any-day-afte r-six-of-lahor,”
theories, and kindred positions so often and
so plausibly, and who think the seventh-day
THE WATCHMAN
observers are so foolish for making so much
fuss over a particular day, are any less stren-
uous than we are for a specific, well-defined,
particular day of the week, and that the first
day of the week, the day of Christ's resur-
rection. After using, with all the force in
their power, the theory we have so often re-
ferred to, to break the force of the seventh
day, appointed in the commandment, when this
is accomplished, they immediately flop over
to the supposed sacred claims of the resur-
rection day, the first day of the week.
It is never well to accuse people of dishon-
esty unless some very important reason forces
the taking of such a position; but it is aston-
ishing how otherwise intelligent people can
place themselves in such a position as our Sun-
day friends do, relative to this seventh-part-
of-time theory. There is not a people on
carth who observe the seventh part of time,
I. e., one day of rest after six of labor, more
strictly than do Seventh-day Adventists. Our
first-day friends in general do not begin to
carry it out as strictly as we do. If they
were consistent, they would universally look
upon us with favor. We everywhere work
six days, and the day following we sacredly
observe as a rest-day unto the Lord. How,
then, does it happen that scores and scores of
our people, devoted, earnest, honest, God-fear-
ing, who carefully regard the rights of their
neighbors, and daily pray to God for them and
their salvation, are hauled away to jails, shut
up in filthy prisons, worked in chain-gangs,
hounded by seventh-part-of-time observers,
and often abused by ministers for their prac-
tice?
Why is it that in all these so-called Cliris-
tian nations of the world, whose laws are
made under the influence of our seventh-part-
of-time believers, we are thus persecuted, when
we have observed that portion of time as
well as, or better than, any of them? How
is it that their logic and fairness all break
down so completely at this particular time
and place? Does it not prove that they are
utterly inconsistent in practice with their own
profession? Does it not show that the very
ones who use this argument are themselves
not believers in it? They may think they
are, but their practice shows they are not.
When we come to the practical illustration
of their doctrine, it utterly fails. They have
a particular day that they are determined to
force every one to lionor. It is not any day
in seven after six of labor; it is the first day
of the week, pure and simple, the day of the
resurrection, “the venerable day of the sun,”
the day of pope and pagan, “the wild solar
holiday of all pagan times,” the worldly rival
to the Sabbath of the Lord our God. This
is the result to which all these specious ar-
guments about “any day of rest after six of
labor,” finally simmer down. ‘The other is
merely dust to throw in the eyes of inquirers
to confuse their minds and break their hold
on the Sabbath of the commandment. When
we get into the law courts which these Chris-
tian liberal people who rule our state legis-
latures have originated, placing these Sunday
laws in their codes, we soon find out what
seventh part of time it is which they meant
all the time we should keep — the day follozo-
ing the siv days which precede Sunday.
‘That's what they meant all the time, and that’s
what they propose to force all of us to ob-
serve, nolens volens. We must keep the day
of the sun, say they. But we prefer another
day, the Sabbath of the Lord our God. Christ
kept this day, after he had made the world,
and while he was here on earth, and we must
follow him. May God help us to do it!
In conclusion, who can dispute that the
seventh-part-of-time theory is a dodge, a
makeshift, a deception, a snare, a mockery,
used to blind the eyes of the searcher of the
truth, a hypocritical pretense which really
those who advocate it do not believe them-
selves; for they are as great sticklers for a
particular day as any of us dare be.
G. I. B.
BI BN
ENTIRELY TOO NEW
N an argument against the Seventh-day
Sabbath, the Christian Standard (Cin-
cinnati), a leading organ of the Disciple
Church, says that Seventh-day Advent-
ists are trying to put new wine into old bot-
tles. “If the old Sabbath,” it says, was
brought over into the new dispensation, then
it was the one item only of all the entire sys-
tem of the old covenant incorporated into the
new.” In the new dispensation, it adds, there
were “entirely new arrangements,” namely, a
“new covenant,” a “new church,” a "new
head of the church, Jesus Christ,” a “new
priesthood,” a “new high priest,” a “new
and living way,” a “new sacrifice,” a “new
temple,” a “new altar,” a “new circumci-
sion,” a “new passover,” and so forth down
to “new religious services on a new day, with
a new name: ‘Upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them’ (Acts 20:
7); ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day’
(Rev. 1:10).”
The idea set forth is that every.hing under
the old dispensation passed away at the death
of Christ, and under the new dispensation we
have everything new.
Many things were .hanged at the death of
Christ, it is true, and new ordinances were
introduced; but if everything that was under
the old dispensation had been done away, the
new dispensation would have been entirely too
new for the welfare of the human family.
For example, suppose the old law given
from Mount Sinai had been abolished, so that
under the new dispensation Christians would
have enjoyed (?) the liberty to steal, kill, com-
mit adultery, etc. We would prefer not to
live under any such new dispensation as that.
The old moral code still stands; that is one
thing that came right over from the old dis-
pensation into the new, and the seventh-day
Sabbath is a part of that law. Why will
Christians admit that nine of the ten com-
mandments are binding on people to-day, and
yet claim that somehow the other one, the
fourth commandment, is not binding?
Then there is the faith of Abraham; this
also is for Christians in the new dispensation.
Abraham is the father of the faithful, and if