EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 24, 1871

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER FIVE.

THE SABBATH ABOLISHED AND PERPETUATED.

Eld. Preble is very outspoken in his opposition to what he terms “the seventh-day Sabbath.” He believes in the perpetuity of “the Sabbath,” but he is certain that “the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished.” Yet he denies that God ever commanded the observance of the seventh-day of the week, and on the contrary teaches us that he ordained the observance simply of the seventh-day after six days of labor. But again he forgets all this and represents the Hebrew people as hallowing the seventh-day of the week in obedience to the commandment of the Almighty. We have already shown something of these self-contradictions from his own words. We ask the patience of the reader while we shall examine other of his contradictory statements.

Question. Has God made two weekly Sabbaths, the one for all mankind, being merely the seventh-day after six days of labor, and not the seventh-day of the week; and the other, for the Hebrew people, being the definite seventh day of the week?

If the only seventh-day Sabbath is the seventh-day after six days of labor, and not the seventh-day of the week, then the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath, which Eld. P. so strongly asserts, was the abolition of the only Sabbath which God has ever made. If God has made but one Sabbath then his act of abolishing that Sabbath undoes all that he had accomplished in instituting it. But if he has made two weekly Sabbaths then he could indeed abolish one and preserve the other, Eld. P.'s book affirms, as we have shown:

The indefinite seventh-day Sabbath after six days of labor.
The Sabbath upon the definite seventh-day of the week.
That God never did ordain the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath.

His theory really requires him to maintain the existence of two weekly Sabbaths in the old Testament; and he therefore asserts their existence. This involves him in fatal difficulties, and he makes bold to assert that God never did ordain the observance of the seventh day of the week. And thus he makes one part of his theory squarely contradict another. In the former articles we have shown these facts very fully. We now invite attention to the following from pages 118, 119: “And be it remembered, that it was the Sabbath, as an institution, that was sanctified, as mentioned in the Decalogue; and not the seventh day of the week. This seventh day was the seventh following six working days. And the only other seventh day of the week that was ever sanctified, was the seventh, after the six working days of creation; and so we read (Gen. 2:3): ‘And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.’ Remember, God did not bless all of the seventh days of the week and sanctify them; but he blessed ‘the seventh day and sanctified it.’ But when the Sabbath was given to the Israelites, as found in the Decalogue, then it was the Sabbath that was sanctified. This was not the seventh day from the beginning of the creation, for there could be but one seventh from that point; but it was the seventh following six days of labor, and probably the seventh day of the week.”

The emphasis is that of Eld. P. I know not what meaning he attaches to words and so cannot say that to him the above may not agree with itself. But I have read it many times with great care in the vain endeavor to discover by what interpretation the author was able to make one part harmonize with another.

Observe these three statements:

The Sabbath of the Decalogue was “not the seventh day of the week,” but the “seventh following six working days.”
The Sabbath of the Decalogue certainly was the seventh day of the week; for “the only other seventh day of the week that was ever sanctified was the seventh after the six working days of creation.” By the use of the word “other” Eld. P. makes the seventh day of the Decalogue, equally with the seventh day of Gen. 2:3, to be the seventh day of the week.
The Sabbath of the Decalogue “was the seventh following six days of labor, and probably the seventh day of the week.”

So here we have three discordant statements respecting the Sabbath of the Decalogue:

It certainly was “not the seventh day of the week.”
It actually was the “seventh day of the week.”
It was “probably the seventh day of the week.”

The first and second statements directly contradict each other, and the third cannot be said to agree with either the first or the second.

Moreover Eld. P. in the above extract plainly indicates two distinct acts of sanctifying two distinct seventh days; one of which was the seventh day of the week; the other was not the seventh day of the week, though it certainly was, and at least probably was.

The first act of sanctification was at the close of the first week of time.
The second, so far as we can gather from Eld. P., was when God gave the Sabbath to Israel.

The first act pertained to the seventh day of the week. But the second act pertained to the seventh day after six days of labor, and this positively was not, and certainly was, the seventh day of the week. The reader can take his choice whether it was or was not the seventh day of the week that was the subject of this second sanctification, for Eld. P. both affirms, and denies. But let us accept the fact that the declaration that this second act of sanctification set apart “not the seventh day of the week” but “the seventh following six working days.” Perhaps some of our readers will suggest that we have found a key that will enable us to understand Eld. P.'s doctrine of the Sabbath perpetuated, and the seventh-day Sabbath abolished.

Let us attempt to use it. Eld. P. shows us that God has instituted two Sabbaths; for he sanctified the seventh day of the week on one occasion, and he sanctified the seventh day following six days of labor on another. The following is the solution of the difficulty:

The definite seventh-day Sabbath is Jewish and has been abolished.
The indefinite seventh-day Sabbath was made for all mankind and is still binding.

This seems to help the case very much. Now we can understand how it is that Eld. P. can be such an advocate of the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and yet so zealous in affirming the abrogation of what he calls “the old Jewish seventh-day Sabbath.” Alas, even this comfortable explanation does not prove to be adapted to the present case. For the definite seventh day which Eld. P. wants to get rid of because it is Jewish, is the very day which himself affirms was sanctified at creation; whereas his alleged indefinite seventh-day Sabbath which he says is the one made for man was, as it appears from his own explicit declaration, sanctified when God gave the Sabbath to Israel. His theory indeed demands these two weekly Sabbaths, and his jarring statements affirm their actual existence in Old Testament times. But while he has the requisite number in order to be able to abolish one and still have one left for present use; and while he has just the right kind, viz., a definite seventh day—which deserved to die for being Jewish—and an indefinite seventh day which cannot be spared because it comes without difficulty on the first day of the week, yet by some unfortunate accident the day which ought to be abolished has got into the place of that one which ought to be preserved. For the indefinite Sabbath—if there ever was such a one—is the very one which he affirms was sanctified when God gave the Sabbath to Israel, and is therefore abolished because it is Jewish; while the Sabbath hallowed in Eden for mankind and still sacredly binding upon them, was by Eld. P.'s own showing, made by God's act of sanctifying the definite seventh day of the week.

Such are the necessary conclusions from one class of Eld. P.'s statements. But unlike the apostle Paul he well knows how to say both “yea and nay.” See 2 Cor. 1:18. And so in the passage from his book under consideration, as we have seen, he first declares that the Sabbath of the decalogue was “not the seventh day of the week,” and then plainly teaches that it was the seventh day of the week, “the only other seventh day of the week that was ever sanctified,” besides this one of Ex. 20:11 is that of Gen. 2:3. And we have heretofore quoted his express language that “the Sabbath which was made for man was the seventh day following six days of labor.” p. 121. This time therefore we have the position of the two Sabbaths reversed. The indefinite seventh-day Sabbath was made at creation for man; and the definite seventh day of the week was the Sabbath given to the Israelites. Let us accept this statement. Now we have a Sabbath worth preserving, and we have also another which is only worthy of being abolished. Fortunately we have got them this time in the right order, so that the Sabbath to be abolished because it is Jewish is the one that comes upon the seventh day of the week.

Now let us study the history of these two institutions. What does Eld. P. hold gave existence to his indefinite seventh-day Sabbath, the kind which he asserts was made at the beginning? Ans. God's act of sanctification mentioned in Gen. 2:3. See p. 143. What does he hold that God sanctified at that time? Ans. The definite seventh day of the first week of time and no more. See pages 5, 119. And see the quotation, in the preceding articles. But how could the sanctification or setting apart to a holy use of the definite seventh day of the week, give existence to an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath? Moreover if that appointment could give existence to an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath, how could that Sabbath come every week for some thousands of years when the original act of consecration, according to Eld. P. pertained only to the seventh day of the first week of time?

The mandate of the Almighty according to Eld. P. was uttered “Let the seventh day of the first week of time be set apart to a holy use” and behold as the result an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath was established for all ages. It was kept from Adam to Moses, as Eld. P. teaches; and Adam himself could enforce this Sabbath for almost a thousand years by the very words used by God in instituting it. Which words simply set apart to a holy use the definite seventh day of the first week of time, and said nothing concerning this indefinite seventh day. (See the quotations in former articles; and see pages 5, 119, and 120 of his “First Day Sabbath.”)

On what authority then did the patriarchs from Adam to Moses observe the Sabbath? Ans. According to Eld. P. (1.) They kept an indefinite seventh day, (2.) in obedience to a precept which set apart the definite seventh day; (3.) and whereas this precept was limited to the first week of time (4.), they recognized its authority for 2500 years.

Would it not be more reasonable to acknowledge, with the observers of the seventh day, that God, instead of setting apart (1.) merely the first seventh day of the week, (2.) and that too, after that day had passed out of existence, (3.) did set apart the seventh day of the week for time to come (4.) in memory of his rest on that day of the first week of time; (5.) and that this divine appointment is the fountain head of authority for Sabbatic observance, (6.) giving us the seventh day or the Sabbath of the Lord (7.) definite and unchangeable for all ages?

It appears from Eld. P.'s teaching that (1.) The patriarchs before the time of Moses observed an indefinite seventh day Sabbath, (2.) in obedience to a mandate which required the observance of the definite seventh day of the week; (3.) which mandate was limited to the first seventh day of time; (4.) which day had ceased to exist when the mandate was given.

This indefinite seventh day Sabbath which came into existence by God's act of sanctifying the definite seventh day of the week, and limiting that sanctification to the first seventh day of time has existed in all ages of the world by reason of this most extraordinary act of institution. So that the indefinite seventh day Sabbath received perpetual divine authority from the sanctification of the definite seventh day of the first week of time.

But now let us see what God did to give the Sabbath to Israel. As nearly as we can learn from Eld. P. he performed a second act of sanctification when he gave to Israel the Sabbath. That there were two acts of sanctification seems evident from these words;

“And be it ever remembered, that it was the Sabbath, as an institution, that was sanctified, as mentioned in the Decalogue; and not the seventh day of the week. This seventh day was the seventh following six working days. The only other seventh day of the week that was ever sanctified, was the seventh, after the six working days of creation; and so we read (Gen. 2:3); And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” Pages 118, 119.

Whether the seventh day of the Decalogue was or was not the seventh day of the week (for Eld. P. in the above plainly affirms, and positively denies) he represents the seventh day of the Decalogue, and the seventh day of Gen. 2:3 as two distinct days and asserts that both were sanctified. Yet in his third question (p. 5.) he confines the act of Gen. 2:3 to that one seventh day of the week on which God rested. We therefore conclude that Eld. P. has two acts of sanctification. That this second act of sanctification was when God gave the Sabbath to Israel, seems to be plainly taught, in the following which is a continuation of the extract just given:

“Remember, God did not bless all of the seventh days of the week, and sanctify them; but he blessed the seventh DAY and sanctified IT. But when the Sabbath was given to the Israelites as found in the Decalogue, then it was the Sabbath (Ex. 20:11) that was sanctified. This was not the seventh day from

the beginning of the creation, for there could be but one seventh from that point; but it was the seventh following six days of labor, and probably the seventh day of the week.”

Observe these things: 1. The sanctification recorded in Gen. 2:3 did not pertain to the seventh day of each successive week, but only to that one seventh day of the week on which God rested. 2. But when the Sabbath was given to the Israelites, as found in the Decalogue, then it was the Sabbath that was sanctified.”

This act of sanctification according to Eld. P. appears to have been at the Exodus. The seventh day that received this sanctification “was the seventh following six days of labor.” And though he here asserts that this was “probably the seventh day of the week” he asserts positively a few lines above, as given in the last quotation but one, that “this was not the seventh day of the week.” We shall therefore accept as the proper statement of his views, his own declaration that this was “the seventh following six working days;” in other words an indefinite seventh day and not the definite seventh day of the week.

And now behold how things work by the rule of contraries:

At the beginning God sanctified the definite seventh day of the week and wonderful to tell—there sprung into existence an indefinite seventh day Sabbath:
At the Exodus he sanctified “not the seventh day of the week” but this indefinite seventh day “following six working days,” and behold the result! the definite seventh day of the week becomes the Sabbath, for the Israelites from Moses to Christ!

But if the indefinite seventh-day Sabbath was better than the definite seventh-day Sabbath, why did the Lord transform the better into the poorer? And again, if his act of sanctification elevates the thing upon which it is placed, why should it change the noble indefinite seventh-day Sabbath into the ignoble, and comparatively worthless, definite seventh-day Sabbath? Did not the Lord know in the first place, that sanctifying the definite seventh day would make an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath? And was he not satisfied with this kind of a Sabbath when he had established it? Or are we to conclude that he meant, all the while, to have a definite seventh-day Sabbath, and so when he found that sanctifying the definite seventh day would not give such a Sabbath, determined to do that indirectly which he could not accomplish by direct action, and thereupon he sanctified the indefinite seventh day, by which means he succeeded in establishing as his Sabbath the seventh day of the week? And yet his first act made that kind of a Sabbath which Eld. P. admires, and believes to be perpetual, and his second act transformed that excellent Sabbath into one so weak and beggarly that he could do no better than to abolish it, and next time, as we shall learn by and by from Eld. P., he sanctifies a new day.

No doubt the act of sanctification recorded in Ex. 20:11, is the identical act of Gen. 2:3. No one ever disputed this fact except those who desire to overthrow the authority of the seventh day. And let it be observed that Ex. 20:11 does not state, as Eld. P. teaches, that God sanctified “the Sabbath,” but it is “the Sabbath-day.” That is to say, he did not sanctify the rest, but the rest-day. But it is not the text itself but Eld. P.'s interpretation of it which engages our attention. Whether he asserts that there was one act of sanctification, or whether he declares that there were two, in either case he involves himself in fatal difficulties with other parts of his theory.

For Eld. P. contends that the Sabbath made for man is an indefinite seventh day, and that it is of perpetual obligation. And this is the very kind of Sabbath which he holds was ordained by the act of sanctification in Gen. 2:3. But the Sabbath which was kept by the Israelites he scornfully terms “the old Jewish seventh-day Sabbath,” and affirms most decidedly that it is abolished. Now if God made but one weekly Sabbath in Old-Testament times, then the Sabbath which Eld. P. praises and perpetuates, and the one which he despises and abrogates, are exactly identical; and he cannot deny it.

But if there were two acts of sanctification, the first of which established at creation an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath of perpetual obligation; and the other ordained at the Exodus the definite seventh-day Sabbath to be observed by the Israelites till the crucifixion, this will help him out of one difficulty only to plunge him into another.

For if he escapes the abolition of his indefinite Sabbath by having it entirely distinct from that seventh-day Sabbath which was abrogated, as he asserts, he involves himself in the dilemma of having two weekly Sabbaths from Moses to Christ, which is not only false in fact, but is quite impossible in reality, inasmuch as each of these institutions would authorize six days of labor in every seven days, and yet the two would make two days of abstinence from labor necessary each week.

But Eld. P. may say that this second sanctification pertains to the day originally set apart as the Sabbath. And, whereas it was, when first ordained, an indefinite seventh day, hallowed for all mankind, it now becomes the definite seventh day of the week, and is to be observed only by the Jews. This helps him out of the difficulty of having two weekly Sabbaths from Moses to Christ, but it still leaves him in trouble. For the Lawgiver changes his excellent Sabbath into the despicable Jewish one, and then in apparent disgust therewith, puts an end to it by summary abrogation. I should not suggest that the indefinite and the definite seventh day might be held by him to be the same, were it not that he himself, after discriminating between them by saying that the day sanctified in Ex. 20:11 “was not the seventh day of the week,” but “was the seventh following six working days,” sees fit to add on the same page that this day “was the seventh following six days of labor, and probably the seventh day of the week.” p. 119.

Two acts of sanctification can therefore no more be made to harmonize with the rest of his theory, than can one. But that he holds to two acts of sanctification is evident, for he says of the day sanctified in Gen. 2:3, that it “was the seventh, after the six working days of creation;” and of that sanctified in Ex. 20:11, “This was not the seventh day from the beginning of the creation.”

Eld. P. has spoken many times of the seventh day after six days of labor as distinguished from the seventh day of the week. What does this term mean? Of course it excludes the idea that the Lawgiver appointed a definite day of the week for the Sabbath, and it necessarily leaves the people to fix the day in some way for themselves.

It could be done by the act of each individual in designating that day as the Sabbath which should succeed his first six days of labor; in which case we should have just as many different Sabbaths as there are days in the week. This is manifestly false, for it would cause utter confusion in the worship of God, and in all the business of life. God is not the author of such an arrangement. 1 Cor. 14:33.
Or it could be determined as the seventh day by the united action of all mankind in first working six days. But such a seventh day never could be observed without one of two things: (1) The whole human family must agree upon the day to be kept, and so fix the day of the week for their united observance; or, (2) The Lawgiver must point out the day of the week on which this indefinite seventh day should come.

In the first case we have the Lord sanctify that day which the majority of the people should consent to keep. In the second case, we have the Lord sanctify this indefinite day, and then, finding that it would not work if left thus utterly vague, he mends the matter by fixing this indefinite seventh day upon a definite day of the week. But such is not the work of Him who is perfect in all his ways. And no such language as “seventh day following six working days” is ever used in the Bible. The seventh day to be hallowed is not determined from the six days of men's labor, but the six days of labor are determined from the day of the Sabbath. Or, to state it in another form, God gives to men for labor the six days of the week which himself thus employed in the creation, and he bids them hallow as the Sabbath that day of the seven on which he rested and was refreshed.

We have hitherto sought in vain to find by what means, if any, Eld. P. could reconcile his contempt for “the seventh-day Sabbath,” which he declares is abolished, with his ardent love for what he calls “the Sabbath,” which he testifies is of perpetual obligation. We have found that these two are one and the same institution. And we have seen that Eld. P. himself goes to such an extreme in making out but one institution, that he even challenges any to prove, if they can, that God ever commanded the observance of the seventh day of the week, or ever required any other day than merely the seventh day after six days of labor. p. 5. But he makes various statements in different parts of his book which seem designed to explain this difficulty of abrogating the Sabbath and yet perpetuating it. Let us carefully examine them.

Question. What kind of a Sabbath does Eld. P. say was made for man?

Ans. “The Sabbath which was ‘made for man,’ was the seventh day following six days of labor. Hence, the ‘Law,’ which is written in the heart, can, and does, direct to the first day of Sabbaton (‘week’) as the Sabbath now ‘for man,’ and not the seventh day of Sabbaton. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the seventh-day Sabbath of the old ‘dispensation of Death’ is done away; and the first-day Sabbath of the ‘dispensation of the Spirit’ has been virtually in force since the resurrection of Christ. p. 121.”

Though every word of the above is mere assertion, it is of value in that it defines his position.

The Sabbath made for man is an indefinite seventh day.
It can come on any day of the week.
It was originally the seventh day of the week.
Since Christ's resurrection it is the first day of the week.
The seventh-day Sabbath is abolished.

This language was formed to show how the Sabbath can be in force and yet the seventh-day Sabbath be abolished. The explanation is, that there is an indefinite Sabbath which can come on any day; and this is of perpetual obligation, while the seventh-day Sabbath is abrogated. But we reply:

No indefinite Sabbath is found in the Bible. Like “the first-day Sabbath” it is only a human invention.
Even the present extract from Eld. P. is sufficient to prove that this indefinite Sabbath never had an existence. For prior to Christ's resurrection it was the seventh day of the week; and since the resurrection of Christ it is the first day of the week. Where is there a place for this indefinite Sabbath in the whole history of man? It is absolutely excluded from the whole period. When, therefore, Eld. P. abolishes “the seventh-day Sabbath,” he abolishes his only Sabbath then in existence, even on his own showing.

But we have Eld. P.'s answer to our question, and we learn that “the Sabbath which was ‘made for man,’ was the seventh day following six days of labor.” Now let us inquire again:

Question. In what capacity, or in what sense was the Sabbath made for man according to Eld. P.?

Ans. “Although the Seventh-day Sabbath is abrogated, yet the first-day Sabbath is binding. Says Christ: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ Sabbath signifies ‘rest,’ and as an institution was made for man—all mankind: but the Sabbath as an institution, and the day of the week on which it is holden, are two distinct things.” p. 3.

Here are several unauthorized assertions;

The seventh-day Sabbath is abolished.
The first-day Sabbath is binding.
The Sabbath as an institution, and the day of the week on which it is holden are two distinct things.

Not one of these statements is made either in the Old or New Testaments. The Lawgiver himself said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” Ex. 20:10. And even Eld. P.'s book declares that the Sabbath which was made for man was made by sanctifying the definite seventh day of the week. See pages 5, 119, 143. (The words have been quoted in the former articles.) The seventh-day Sabbath is the memorial of God's rest on that day of the week from the six days' labor of creation. The institution is made out of the seventh day because the facts which are absolutely essential to its existence pertain to that day, and to no other. The institution and the day are therefore inseparable, and if the day is abolished the institution is abrogated. Moreover if the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished then the Sabbath which was made for man is no longer in existence; for that was made by sanctifying the seventh day of the week, and it was concerning the observance of that very day that Christ was speaking when he said that “the Sabbath was made for man.” Examine Mark 2:23–28. Eld. P. says “that the first-day Sabbath is binding.” How does he know? “Who hath required this at your hands?” It is only binding as a commandment of men and never as a statute of the Almighty.

But though Eld. P.'s statement is not Scriptural, and though it still leaves him in the dilemma of abolishing the very institution that he professes to perpetuate, yet it does furnish an answer to the question, “In what capacity or in what sense was the Sabbath made for man?” by stating that “as an institution,” it was made for man and that “the Sabbath as an institution, and the day of the week on which it is holden are two distinct things.” Now we inquire of him still further:

Question. What does the institution of the Sabbath consist of as held by Eld. P.?

Ans. “As an institution, the Sabbath consists of two parts; the Sabbath, or holy rest; and the day on which it is holden. The Lord ‘rested’ on one seventh day; but he blessed the Sabbath as an institution. Hence, the Sabbath as an institution, is different from the day on which it is kept. Hence, the Sabbath can be a perpetual institution, though the day be changed as often as it may be God's order to do so; and still the Sabbath as an institution remain the same.” pp. 121, 122.

We may well despair of ever harmonizing Eld. P.'s statements. He is trying to do it himself by showing how easily God can abolish the seventh-day Sabbath and yet preserve the Sabbath itself. He has told us in the last quotation before this that the Sabbath as an institution is distinct from the day on which it is holden. The day was formerly the seventh day of the week, but that day is abolished, and the institution itself which is wholly distinct from the day is transferred bodily to the first day of the week. Now he turns around and spoils all this by squarely contradicting this comfortable explanation.

Then he said: “The Sabbath as an institution, and the day of the week on which it is holden, are two distinct things.” p. 3.

Now he says: “As an institution, the Sabbath consists of two parts; the Sabbath or holy rest; and the day on which it is holden.” p. 121.

The first of these statements represents the Sabbath as an abstraction, a thing having no tangible existence. It is simply a holy rest without having any day connected therewith. This is an institution which is purely imaginary; existing indeed in Eld. P.'s mind, but nowhere to be found in the Bible. Its only value to him consisted in the fact that it made a bridge over the great gulf in his theory between the “seventh-day Sabbath” abolished, and “the Sabbath” perpetuated. But having crossed on this bridge, and evidently supposing he would not need to cross again, and without perhaps perceiving the absurdity of this idea of an imaginary abstract Sabbath disconnected from any day, he now comes out and declares that the institution consists of two parts: 1. The rest. 2. The day on which it is holden. Now he has broken down his bridge and left as before the impassable gulf which we have so long been examining in order to find his place of crossing.

Eld. P. having said that “as an institution, the Sabbath consists of two parts; the Sabbath, or holy rest; and the day on which it is holden,” draws the following singular conclusion: “Hence, the Sabbath as an institution, is different from the day on which it is kept. The day is one of the two things that make the institution. The institution differs from the day just as the whole of a thing differs from one of its two parts; though the statement almost involves an absurdity inasmuch as the institution cannot exist aside from the day out of which it was made. But his second ‘hence’ is still more remarkable. It is his next sentence, and here it is:

“Hence the Sabbath can be a perpetual institution, though the day be changed as often as it may be God's order to do so; and still the Sabbath, as an institution, remain the same.” p. 122.

But in making this statement Eld. P. has forgotten that he has himself just removed his own bridge. His present reasoning is in accordance with his declaration on p. 5, that the Sabbath as an institution is distinct from the day on which it is holden. Such an institution might be changed. But he retracts this false statement in the first sentence of the present extract. He now declares that the institution consists of two parts, the rest, and the day of the rest. There is no such thing as an abstract or imaginary Sabbath connected with no day and capable of being moved from one day to another without change. The institution has a tangible existence because it has a day of the week within it as one of its constituent parts. When therefore the institution is changed from one day to another, the day must be moved also; or rather as the day cannot be moved for the several days of the week are incapable of change, the Sabbath itself is an immovable institution.

We might illustrate Eld. P.'s reasoning by using his own book to exemplify it. The title page reads thus: “The First Day Sabbath, etc.; In Two Parts.” Part first gives his Theory; part second his Reviews of U. S. and J. N. A. Let me reason like Eld. P. His book as a work consists of two parts, his Theory and his Reviews. “Hence” his book as a work is different from his Reviews. But his Reviews make fully one-half of his book, and the two differ only as the whole differs from a part. But he has another “hence” and so will we. “Hence” the book can be a perpetual work, though these Reviews be omitted and another set of Reviews be inserted in it every new edition, and moreover the work itself “remain the same.” Were I to reason thus concerning his book he would say that I was either playfully bantering, or else willfully attempting to deceive by false reasoning. I will not say either of these things respecting my friend Eld. P. He is manifestly deceived by his own false reasoning.

He has answered our question very definitely, and we now understand that, “as an institution, the Sabbath consists of two parts: the Sabbath or holy rest; and the day on which it is holden.” Now, we inquire further respecting this institution:

Question. Has this institution, which consists of the holy rest and of the day consecrated to that rest, been abrogated? If not, has the institution been changed to another day? And if so, is the institution itself unchanged? What says Eld. P.?

Ans. “Hence it is that the Sabbath, as an institution is not abrogated, but changed to another day in such a manner as to enlarge its usefulness and importance to mankind; and thus become a solemn memorial of two wonderful works instead of one. And, hence, the Sabbath itself is unchanged. And so the Christian Sabbath returns every ‘seventh day’ after six working days, and is a memorial of creation as well as of redemption. And be it remembered that ‘the first day of the week’ (Sabbaton) and no other could possibly combine all these advantages.” p. 123.

The institution of the Sabbath is not abrogated. But the institution consists of the rest commanded, and the day sanctified for that purpose. These two things make up the institution and both are perpetuated. These two are the holy rest and the seventh day!
But the institution has been changed to another day. That might be if the seventh day of the week on which we are to rest in memory of God's rest on that day could with its holy rest be translated bodily to another day of the week. But to transfer the institution, the two things which make it up, must both be moved, which cannot be done.
But Eld. P. makes another statement which is very strange. He asserts that the Sabbath has been changed in such a manner as to enlarge its usefulness, and its importance, and to make it commemorate two wonderful works instead of one. Then he uses another “hence.” “And hence, the Sabbath itself, as an institution, is unchanged.” Were the statements respecting its change and the transformation thereby wrought in it, true, this last statement would be false. As those statements are all false, the declaration is manifestly true that “the Sabbath itself as an institution is unchanged.”
The so-called Christian Sabbath of which the Bible says nothing, “returns every ‘seventh day,’ after six working days, and is a memorial of creation as well as of redemption.” But in order to have the first day of the week thus counted he must begin his count with the second day of the week, and he must use as a “working day” the rest day of the Lord which forms an inseparable part of that institution which Eld. P. in this very paragraph declares “is not abrogated” and “is unchanged.”
“The first day of the week and no other could possibly combine all these advantages.” But the Bible nowhere represents the first day of the week as the memorial of redemption, or ever gives it the title of Christian Sabbath. It is plain first day of the week and nothing more. Its title too “seventh day” is only given it by force, and without the consent of its true friends, the sacred writers, precisely as certain ones were determined to confer on Jesus the title of King. John 6:15. Any other day can be made out “the seventh,” if we disregard the weekly cycle established by the Almighty, and frame one to suit ourselves. But why should it be such a merit in a day to be falsely called “seventh day” when the one rightly so-called is abolished for that very fact? See pages 3, 6, 9, 36, 37, and many others.

We have found it impossible to harmonize Eld. P.'s statement respecting the abrogation and the perpetuity of the Sabbath. We have also carefully examined those passages in his book which are manifestly designed to reconcile the difficulty, and we submit to the reader that they contain no solution of the matter, not indeed on this grave question alone, but on many points of importance connected with this subject do we find our author squarely contradicting himself. When the light which is in a man is darkness, how great is that darkness.