Examination of T. M. Preble’s First-day Sabbath.
By John Nevins Andrews
In August, 1867, Eld. T. M. Preble published a volume of 471 pages, entitled “The First-day Sabbath.” As this book had been announced some years prior to its publication as designed expressly for the refutation of “Andrews’ History of the Sabbath,” its appearance was awaited with some degree of interest. The earliest copies issued were received at the Advent camp-meeting of that year at Wilbraham, Mass., toward the close of that meeting, and one of the first copies sold, was to myself. On perusing the book, however, I was satisfied that it could do little hurt to any who had candidly read the History of the Sabbath which it professes to answer. The work is remarkable for two things: First, for intense bitterness toward myself, for which no provocation whatever has ever been given; Second, for being utterly uncandid in its professed reply to my History of the Sabbath. Such being the character of the work it has never seemed to me especially important to reply to it because not adapted to injure the candid reader. And being constantly pressed with the most urgent duties, I have never seen time to visit those libraries which I consulted in the first place, and to which I must again refer in order to properly vindicate myself from the attack of Eld. Preble. The preparation of a second edition of my work, however, gives me opportunity to prepare also a reply to this book written to overthrow mine, and I gladly avail myself of the privilege. Before entering upon the direct examination of Eld. P.’s book, a brief recital of facts intimately connected with the present discussion is worthy of the reader’s attention. In November, 1865, a discussion was held at Portland, Maine, between Elds. Cornell and Preble. The question was thus stated: “The seventh-day Sabbath, observed by God’s people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind.” Eld. C. affirmed; Eld. P. denied. In the early part of the discussion Eld. P. made a very bitter attack upon “Andrews’ History of the Sabbath;” and he had so much to say respecting it that Eld. C. protested against this course of action as being wholly irrelevant to the question under examination. He declined to follow Eld. P. in this thing, but at my request made him this proposition: “The author of the History of the Sabbath will discuss the merits of that work with Eld. P. through the columns of the ADVENT REVIEW, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, provided that the discussion shall also be published in the World’s Crisis, the eastern organ of the no-law Adventists.” In reporting the discussion at Portland, the editor of the ADVENT REVIEW, Uriah Smith, made the following remarks in reference to the foregoing proposition, in that paper of Jan. 30, 1866: “The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.” The World’s Crisis for Feb. 14, 1866, contained the following response from Eld. Preble:— “In the REVIEW AND HERALD of Jan. 30, 1866, in referring to J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, the writer says: “The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.” “To this challenge I reply that I am ready, and ‘dare step in and risk’ an open encounter with any man in their ranks qualified to defend their cause in testing the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath, either in oral or written discussion, as soon as arrangements can be agreed upon. “Will they ‘dare’ do it? Will they ‘risk their cause’ in this manner? We shall see. They may try to shield themselves from this issue, by saying they will not debate this question with me unless the World’s Crisis will also publish the discussion. But I am disposed to ‘dare’ them to ‘risk their cause’ in an open encounter through the columns of this paper. But it is quite doubtful whether they will dare to run such a ‘risk’ as this. But we shall see what we shall see.
T. M. PREBLE.
East Weare, N. H., Feb. 5, 1866.” The World’s Crisis having published this defiant challenge to the Seventh-day Adventists to risk an encounter with Eld. P. in the columns of that paper, did by that act in the most emphatic manner commit itself that such discussion should be allowed a place in the columns, if the friends of the seventh-day Sabbath should dare to undertake it. Such being the case, it was proper that our General Conference Committee should take action with reference to this matter. It was not merely Eld. P., but it was really the World’s Crisis that thus threw down the gauntlet. And moreover this gave promise of an opportunity to reach the no-law Adventists with the argument in behalf of the seventh day. Only one member of the General Conference Committee was at this time in Battle Creek; but the editor of the ADVENT REVIEW and the editor of the Youth’s Instructor united with that member in responding through the REVIEW of Feb. 27, 1866, to the defiant language of the Crisis. Here is their response: “Acting for the other members of the General Conference Committee, we would designate Eld. J. N. Andrews as the one to conduct this discussion in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. And he is hereby instructed to make such arrangements with Eld. P. and the Crisis as shall bring the matter to an early issue.
[Signed]
U. SMITH.
G. W. AMADON.
J. M. ALDRICH.” In obedience to this instruction I addressed the following note of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:— “[For the Crisis.]
“NORRIDGEWOCK, ME., March 5, 1866. “BRO. GRANT: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW. He proposes to discuss ‘the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath.’ “In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion:
“1. The biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day.
“2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving ‘the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath.’
“Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point.
J. N. ANDREWS.” As the conductors of the Crisis had indorsed Eld. P.’s challenge for a discussion of this subject through its columns, by publishing that challenge to the world, they could not, without the most flagrant injustice, refuse to insert in that paper my note of acceptance, even though they should decide to shut out the discussion. It would indeed reflect no honor upon them to publish a challenge for a discussion through their columns, and then refuse to allow the discussion to take place; but to go still further and refuse to publish the note of acceptance, or even to let the fact appear that the challenge was accepted, is an act of injustice that can only be justified by proving that the moral law is abolished. And now observe what was done. No notice was taken of this acceptance in the columns of the Crisis, but its editor addressed me a private letter as follows:— “BOSTON, MASS., March 15, 1866. “BRO. ANDREWS: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day.
“Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble.
“Your brother in Christ,
“MILES GRANT.” To this letter I returned the following reply:— “NORRIDGEWOCK, ME., March 19, 1866. “BRO. GRANT: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret that your ‘regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis.’ Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question ‘through the columns’ of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language, and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Eld. P.’s proposition thus endorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, to conduct this discussion in behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had, but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world ‘dared’ to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such challenge through its columns.
“You say that you have sent my letter to Eld. P. With Eld. P. privately I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence, I have other and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion; if this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of the Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Eld. P. for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW?”
“Yours in Christ,
“J. N. ANDREWS.” To this appeal the editor and the conductors of the Crisis paid not the slightest attention. Yet to refuse such a demand is so manifestly unjust that we venture to assert that no man dare to defend it. Eld. P.’s challenge was promptly accepted. Yet the Crisis having published that challenge refuses to allow the fact of its acceptance to appear in its columns. The readers of the Crisis are left to believe, 1. That that paper is open to a fair discussion of the Sabbath question. 2. That the observers of the Bible Sabbath dare not meet the subject in a fair, open encounter, through the columns of the Crisis and the REVIEW. These impressions prevail extensively among the readers of the Crisis, as I am informed by competent authorities. And it really looks as if those who proposed the debate, and then shut out from the columns of the Crisis all mention of the fact that it was promptly accepted, did design by this unworthy conduct to make capital for the no-Sabbath or Sunday-Sabbath cause. It has given opportunity for not a little boasting, and Eld. P., to whom the editor of the Crisis says he sent my letter of acceptance, has had neither the principles of justice nor of honor strong enough to correct the false impression which has thus been fastened upon the readers of that paper. Nor can it be said that the editor of the Crisis may never have received my second letter, and that he may therefore be blameless. He did receive the first on his own acknowledgment; and that first letter should have needed no second to awaken him to justice. But there is another fact to be noticed. After waiting some twenty days for a response to my second letter, I sent the entire correspondence to the ADVENT REVIEW, in which paper of April 24, 1866, it was published to the world. As this failed to cause the Crisis to correct its injustice, the subject came up for consideration in the ensuing General Conference, May 17, 1866. The following resolution was unanimously adopted and published in the ADVENT REVIEW of May 22, 1866: “Whereas, There appeared in the World’s Crisis, of Feb. 14, 1866, a very defiant challenge to S. D. Adventists for the discussion of the Sabbath question, particularly the ‘History of the Sabbath,’ through the columns of that paper, and “Whereas, This challenge was promptly and unqualifiedly accepted, with the offer on our part that it should also appear in the REVIEW, and “Whereas, The Crisis thereupon refused to allow the discussion to appear in its columns; and further refused to publish the brief note of acceptance from J. N. Andrews, who was designated to conduct the discussion on the part of our people; and further, when courteously requested to let the fact appear that the challenge had been accepted, would not even grant us that favor, therefore, “Resolved, That we express our surprise at such a course on the part of the Crisis, and our inability to reconcile it with the principles of honor, of justice, and of Christianity.” This failed to call out, either from the Crisis or from Eld. P., any correction of the wrong with which they stood connected. They could not complain of the language used as harsh or unbecoming, and they certainly were not ignorant of the injustice which we had suffered. With the action of the General Conference, May, 1866, all effort on our part to obtain justice in this case ceased. It was58in August of the following year, 1867, that Eld. P.’s work entitled, “First-Day Sabbath” was published to the world. Such was its remarkable bitterness toward myself, and such its unfairness and lack of candor in its treatment of the “History of the Sabbath,” and such having been the result of our response to the challenge for a discussion through the Crisis, it did not appear to me, on an examination of the book, best to neglect the urgent and responsible duties that were upon me in order to reply to this work. But in the providence of God a favorable opportunity to prepare a reply to Eld. P.’s book in connection with the preparation of a new edition of the “History of the Sabbath,” having come, this work shall now receive proper attention at my hands.