EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE’S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
HIS PECULIAR THEORY OF THE SABBATH.
That part of Eld. P.’s theory which we shall examine in this chapter may be thus stated: 1. God sanctified one seventh day of the week and no more. That one seventh day of the week was the day on which he rested, or the first seventh day of time. 2. God never did sanctify the seventh day of the week; for that which he sanctified is always the Sabbath, and never a specified day of the week. 3. The Sabbath which God made for man was the seventh day following six days of labor. 4. God never at any time commanded the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. 5. God did ordain the seventh day of the week for the Jewish Sabbath. 6. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week; but it is rightly called “the seventh day” because it comes after six days of labor. 7. The seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews is abolished; but the one-day-in-seven Sabbath which God made for all mankind still remains in full force. Though Eld. P.’s book is by no means a small one, yet in no place do we find a connected statement of his views of the Sabbath. His book contains much matter which has only a remote bearing upon the subject of the Sabbath; and the scattered statements of his views are introduced without any regard to order, and expressed so blindly that it is not without some difficulty that the several features of his theory are determined. The reader will however learn two of his points without much difficulty. 1. That God has abolished the Sabbath which comes upon the seventh day of the week. 2. That God never instituted such a Sabbath. The several features of Eld. P.’s theory above enumerated do not harmonize very well with each other, but they do for all that correctly represent the doctrine of his book. Let us examine these remarkable propositions: 1. God sanctified one seventh day of the week and no more. That one seventh day of the week was the day on which he rested, or the first seventh day of time. Is this proposition sustained by the statements of his book? We have shown it to be a truthful statement of Eld. P.’s doctrine in former articles of this series, but we will again call attention to his words. In what language does Eld. P. challenge the reader to prove the contrary of this proposition if he thinks himself able? Answer. “Is there a passage in the Bible to prove that the Lord ever sanctified but one seventh day of the WEEK? and that, the day on which he rested? If such a passage is to be found, where is it?” p. 5. As no week has two seventh days in it, this language plainly implies that God did sanctify the seventh day of the first week of time, but did not sanctify the seventh day of any other week. In what other words has Eld. P. stated this same doctrine? Ans. “Remember, God did not bless ALL the seventh days of the week, and sanctify them; but he blessed the seventh DAY and sanctified IT.” p. 119. The emphasis is that of Eld. P. The seventh day of the week can come only once in each week. We can have just as many seventh days of the week, as we have weeks, and no more. As this statement confines the act of sanctification to one seventh day and excludes all others, it is in exact harmony with the words before quoted; viz., that God “sanctified but one seventh day of the week, and that the day on which he rested.” The first proposition is therefore certainly one of the doctrines of Eld. P.’s book. Now let us consider the second. 2. God never did sanctify the seventh day of the week; for that which he sanctified is always the Sabbath and never a specified day of the week. This statement does not, it is true, harmonize with the one just examined. That declares that God did sanctify just one seventh day of the week; viz., the one on which “he rested,” and it denies that he ever sanctified any other. But this one declares that he never sanctified any specified day of the week. In what way does he assert this doctrine? It is by challenging its denial. What are his words? Ans. “Is it not always the case that it is the Sabbath which was sanctified; the particular day of the week not specified? If this is not the case, point to chapter and verse which disproves it.” p. 5. According to this language it is always the Sabbath and never a specified day of the week that God sanctified. If this second proposition is true, then the first one is false; for that declares that he did sanctify one specified day of the week, and this denies that he ever did such an act. We are here told that it is the Sabbath which God sanctified, and not a specified day of the week, and we shall next learn what this Sabbath is which God sanctified. 3. The Sabbath which God made for man was the seventh day following six days of labor. In what manner does Eld. P. state this doctrine that God made the Sabbath for man by ordaining as such the seventh day following six days of labor and not the seventh day of the week? He does it first by stating it as a question that can be answered only in the affirmative. But what is his language? Ans. “Is there a passage in all the Bible to prove that the seventh day of the week is to be observed as the Sabbath? If so, where is it to be found? Understand us: The question is not whether the ‘seventh day’ following ‘six days shalt thou labor’ is to be observed; but the seventh day of the week.” This language teaches that God has never in any place in his word ordained the observance of the seventh day of the week, but that it is always merely the seventh day after six days of toil. It challenges contradiction. In what other words has he stated this doctrine? Ans. “The Sabbath which was made for man was the seventh day following six days of labor.” p. 121. It follows therefore that when God ordained the Sabbath at the creation of the world he did not set apart the seventh day of the week, but a seventh day after six days of labor. The next proposition agrees very well with the one just noted. Here it is: 4. God never at any time commanded the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. We have recourse again to Eld. P.’s seven questions (all of which were answered in the third article of this series) to learn his views on this point. What says he on this proposition? Ans. “Is there a place in all the Bible but what shows clearly that the seventh day to be observed as the Sabbath, was always the seventh day following six days shalt thou labor—the day of the week not particularly specified? If such a passage is to be found where is it?” This question denies that a single text can be found which teaches the observance of the seventh day of the week. The third proposition declares that when God made the Sabbath he did not ordain as such the seventh day of the week. And this proposition declares that he has never at any time required the observance of the seventh day of the week. The next declaration is however not in harmony with this one. Here it is: 5. God did ordain the seventh day of the week for the Jewish Sabbath. If we carefully trace through Eld. P.’s book we shall find it no easy task to reconcile his statements with each other, nor indeed in all cases even to determine the meaning of his language. We have learned from him that God set apart to a holy use the seventh day of the first week of time; but that he never sanctified any other seventh day of the week. We have learned also that he never sanctified any specified day of the week but always the Sabbath. And we have learned that the Sabbath which God made for man is simply the seventh day after six days of labor and not the seventh day of the week. We have further learned that in no place in the Bible has God ever commanded the observance of the seventh day of the week. We are now interested to learn what kind of a Sabbath it was which God enjoined upon the Hebrews for their weekly observance. 1. Whether it was one day in seven after six days of labor; or, 2, whether it was the seventh day of the week; and, 3, if it was the seventh day of the week how they came by it, inasmuch as no precept of the Bible, according to Eld. P., ever required the observance of that day. In arguing the change of the Sabbath, how does he state that fact that the people of God before the alleged change did by divine authority observe that seventh day of the week? Ans. “The change from the seventh, to the first day of the week, was not made without the Lord’s sanction; for if it was, the apostles would have been guilty of disobedience to God in establishing an institution of their own—abolishing that of God, and instituting their own in its place.” p. 127. In this statement respecting the alleged change of the Sabbath, Eld. P. confesses several important truths. 1. The day observed before this pretended apostolic change of the Sabbath was the seventh day of the week; 2. That God himself had ordained the observance of the seventh day; for 3. If those who made the change from the seventh day of the week to the first, had not a divine warrant for their action, they were guilty of disobeying God in establishing an institution of their own, the first-day Sabbath, and abolishing that of God, the Sabbath upon the seventh day of the week. It plainly follows from the language of Eld. P. 1. That the Jews observed the seventh day of the week. 2. That they did it in obedience to God’s commandment. Again, in proving that the wave sheaf was offered upon the first day of the week, Eld. P. bases his argument upon the indisputable fact that the Hebrews observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. But what are his words? Ans. “He was to wave the sheaf before the Lord; and this was always to be done ‘on the morrow after the Sabbath,’ (Lev. 23: 11); and of course this must always take place on ‘the first day of the week;’ for if the Sabbath then was on the seventh day of the week, surely the morrow after, or day following, must be the first day.” p. 132. What name and designation does Eld. P. apply to that Sabbath day on which Christ lay in the grave? Ans. “Throughout Saturday, or seventh-day he lay in the tomb. On the first day of the week—the Christian Sabbath—he was again restored to them.” p. 125. Eld. P. tells us what day of the week Saturday is in very explicit language. What are his words? Ans. “How many days are there in a week? Seven. What is ‘the first day’ called? Sunday. What is the ‘seventh day’ called? Saturday.” p. 265. We are therefore certain of two things in Eld. P.’s theory which fully justify the fifth proposition. These are, 1. The Sabbath observed by the Jewish people was the definite seventh day of the week; 2. That they kept this day by divine commandment. Here is the sixth proposition: 6. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, but is rightly called “the seventh day” because it comes after six days of labor. In speaking of the resurrection of Christ what does Eld. P. say by way of designating the day of its occurrence? Ans. “On the first day of the week—the Christian Sabbath—he was again restored to them.” p. 125. When does he say this kind of Sabbath was ordained? Ans. “The first day Sabbath of the ‘dispensation of the Spirit’ has been virtually in force since the resurrection of Christ.” p. 121. How does he make it appear that this first day Sabbath is the seventh day? Ans. “And so the Christian Sabbath returns every ‘seventh day,’ after six working days, and is a memorial of creation as well as of redemption.” p. 123. It is evident therefore that the sixth proposition is a correct statement of Eld. P.’s theory. It will be still more evident as we shall cite his language under the seventh. 7. The seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews is abolished; but the one-day-in-seven Sabbath which God made for all mankind still remains in full force. How does Eld. P. state this doctrine? What kind of a Sabbath does he say God made for the human family? What has become of the Sabbath which by God’s command was hallowed upon the seventh day of the week? And what day of the week is now to be observed in keeping that Sabbath which is simply the seventh day after six days of labor? 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. What peculiar terms does Elder P. use to designate the seventh-day Sabbath? Ans. On page 6 he calls it “the old Jewish seventh day”; on page 46 he calls it “the Jewish Sabbath”; and on page 88 he terms it “the old Jewish seventh-day Sabbath.” How does Eld. P. in his sixth question state this doctrine of an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath now to be observed upon the first day of the week? Ans. “If, then, it is the Sabbath that was made for man, and not the seventh day of the week, are not138Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh day’ following six days of labor?” p. 5. These quotations from Eld. P.’s book fully justify the statement that the seven propositions at the opening of this article are, so far as they go, a correct outline of Eld. P.’s doctrine of the Sabbath. We have thus drawn out with some degree of care and labor a statement of Eld. P.’s doctrine of the Sabbath. The book seems to have been framed for the purpose of pleasing all who oppose the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. Hence it is that the no-Sabbath people of all varieties, and the Sunday-Sabbath observers of every class, will find much that exactly suits their several tastes; and in that one thing, in which alone they all agree, viz., opposition to the observance of that day of the week upon which God himself did rest, they all can find much to rejoice in and to admire. To be sure the theory taken as a whole is not consistent with itself, but it is impossible that it should be when framed out of such discordant doctrines. The book is largely indebted to writers upon the no-Sabbath or Sunday-Sabbath theories, whose arguments are used in almost their own words, though in several cases without credit. And it would appear that our author in using these discordant arguments, did not realize that the single merit on their part, of opposition to the honorable and hallowed rest-day of the Lord, was not sufficient to make up for the fact that they contradicted each other in assigning their several reasons for that opposition. When the Lord of the Sabbath was upon trial there were plenty of false witnesses to prove that he could not be the true Christ; but in stating their evidence, the reasons for which they rejected him did not at all harmonize. Mark 14: 55–59. Our friend P. in writing his book drew freely, for his arguments, from very discordant materials. And bringing these in from time to time between masses of matter which, oftentimes have little connection with the question of the Sabbath, and sometimes none at all, as in the case of his dissertation on feet-washing (pp. 31–33), he does not seem to have kept in mind his former statements when making new ones. And for the same reason, his readers wading through these long discussions, may not observe his discrepancies, as one statement may be lost from the mind before the next is reached. But while this is true in many cases, there are several instances where these contradictory statements are found on the same page, as in his seven questions answered in our third article, and in other places to be noticed hereafter. The blind manner in which the statements are made in these cases may hide their contradictory character from the careless reader though hardly from their author. My object in drawing out Eld. Preble’s theory of the Sabbath is not merely to show its self-contradictions, but to give the reader a definite conception of what it is. That it contradicts itself is a sufficient proof that it cannot be true as a whole; but it does not necessarily prove it to be false in all its parts. His principal arguments for his several propositions will be examined in due time. Nevertheless, his contradictory statements are particularly worthy of being compared with each other. 1. Those who cherish the seventh-part-of-time theory, and on the strength of their faith in that theory keep the first-day Sabbath, will be gratified to learn that God never did sanctify the seventh day of the week, but did sanctify as the Sabbath an indefinite seventh day to be observed after six days of labor. 2. Those who have no faith in the seventh-part-of-time doctrine, and who cannot deny that God did set apart the seventh day of the week, though they do not have any heart to keep it, will read with much pleasure, that though it is a fact that God did at the creation of the world sanctify the seventh day of the week, he confined that sanctification to that first seventh day of time, and did not set apart the seventh day of any week since the first. 3. Those who dislike the institution of the weekly Sabbath, and who regard the day of the Creator’s rest as the only day entitled by the law of God to that distinction, will be greatly edified with the author’s effort to show that the seventh-day Sabbath is absolutely abolished. 4. Those who cherish the first-day Sabbath, yet have some qualms of conscience because it comes on a different day from that named in the commandment, will be gratified to learn that Sunday is rightly called “the seventh day.” 5. Those who believe in the perpetuity of the weekly Sabbath, and yet cannot endure “the seventh day,” will learn with much satisfaction that God has not abolished the Sabbath, but has simply abolished “the seventh-day Sabbath.” 6. Those who have some fears that God has never changed the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, will be relieved on learning that God never did command the observance of the seventh day of the week, and that the only Sabbath ever ordained by him was the seventh day after six days of labor. 7. Those who are troubled because the first-day Sabbath has so slender a foundation in the New Testament, will be helped in their minds by learning that though God did lay the foundation of the seventh-day Sabbath at the creation of the world, by the sanctification of the first seventh day of the week, yet that he rendered his own act of no effect by confining it to that one day; and that he actually did not sanctify even that one seventh day of the week, but did sanctify simply the seventh day after six days of labor, and that the first day of the week is just such a seventh day as that while the seventh day of the week fails to come up to that mark. The book is designed to give “meat in due season” to all those numerous, but exceedingly diverse classes, who, concerning the subject of the Sabbath, agree only in that one thing, viz., that the seventh day of the week must not be acknowledged as the Sabbath of the Lord. Each must, however, take his part, and leave the others to do the same. But woe to him who swallows it all! He will be in favor of the Sabbath, but against the seventh-day Sabbath. He will condemn the seventh day of the week because it is in truth the seventh day; and he will justify the observance of the first day under the false pretence that it is the seventh day. He will set aside the seventh day of the week because God has abrogated the precept for its observance; and he will make assurance doubly sure by affirming that God never at any time commanded men to keep it. He will remove the foundation of the seventh-day Sabbath by asserting that God never sanctified the seventh day of the week; but that what he sanctified was merely the seventh day after six days of labor; and he will then upset his one-day-in-seven Sabbath by acknowledging that the act whereby God made the Sabbath was that of sanctifying the seventh day of the week; and he will neutralize this act of sanctification, whatever it amounted to, by confining it to the first week of time! “Hot, cold, moist, and dry,” the four fierce champions who contend in chaos, find also a fit battle-ground in the mind of our friend who has just read Eld. P.’s “First-Day Sabbath,” and has accepted its teaching as his creed on the Sabbath question. He may be willing that these champions should contend, and he may enjoy their controversy, under the impression that one is as near right as the other! But should he be called upon to give a reason for the faith that is in him, what answer would he be able to return to the following questions? 1. How could God make an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath by sanctifying the definite seventh day of the week? 2. How was a continued existence given to the Sabbath, when the act of sanctification which gave it being had no reference to any day except the first seventh day of time? 3. But as God never did sanctify the seventh day of the week, and never did command the observance of that day, but did sanctify an indefinite seventh day, and did invariably command the keeping of this kind of a Sabbath, and no other, how happened it that the Hebrews did, by divine authority, hallow as the Sabbath the seventh day of the week? 4. And why did God abolish the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath when he had never ordained such a Sabbath? 5. What merit is it in the first day of the week to falsely claim the title of “seventh day,” when that day which is truly such is abolished because it bears that title as a matter of fact? 6. Again, if God never did ordain the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, but did ordain as the Sabbath the seventh day after six days of labor, does it not follow that this is the only seventh-day Sabbath that he ever made? And if he abolished this, the only seventh-day Sabbath that existed, did he not cut up by the roots the Sabbatic institution? How can the Sabbath remain as Eld. P. affirms that it does, when, as he asserts, God abolished the seventh-day Sabbath? Were there two seventh-day Sabbaths, one definite, and the other not such? We conclude this article by one question addressed to the reader: Could Eld. P. frame the theory of his “First-Day Sabbath” had he sacredly regarded the words of Paul in 2 Cor. 4: 2?